In Nicomachean Ethics 7.7 (= Eudemian Ethics 6.7), Aristotle distinguishes softness (malakia) from lack of self-control (akrasia) and endurance (karteria) from self-control (enkrateia). This paper argues that unqualified softness consists of a disposition to give up acting to avoid the painful toil (ponos) required to execute practical resolutions, and (coincidentally) to enjoy the pleasures of rest and relaxation. The enduring person, in contrast, persists in her commitments despite the painful effort required to enact them. Along the way, I argue that (...) this interpretation qualifies our understanding of the pleasures and pains with which temperance and intemperance are concerned. (shrink)

I argue that Aristotelian decisions (προαιρέσεις) cannot be conceived of as based solely on wish (βούλησις) and deliberation (βούλευσις), as the standard picture (most influentially argued for in Anscombe's "Thought and Action in Aristotle", in R. Bambrough ed. New Essays on Plato and Aristotle. London: Routledge, 1965) suggests. Although some features of the standard view are correct (such as that decisions have essential connection to deliberation and that wish always plays a crucial role in the formation of a decision), Aristotelian (...) decisions sometimes must include non-rational desires such as appetite. Consequently, any exegetical account of Aristotle’s notion of decision must be able to accommodate this feature. (shrink)

Cases of akratic behavior are generally seen as paradigmatic depictions of the knowledge-action gap (Darnell et al 2019): we know what we should do, we judge that we should do it, yet we often fail to act according to our knowledge. In recent decades attention has been given to a particular instance of akratic behavior, which is that of “inverse akrasia”, where the agent possesses faulty moral knowledge but fails to act accordingly, thus ending up doing the right thing. In (...) particular, two literary examples are considered as exemplifying this kind of akratic situation: Huckleberry Finn (Arpaly & Schroeder 1999, Arpaly 2000, Hursthouse 1999, Kleist 2009, Holton manuscript) and Neoptolemus as understood by Aristotle (NE; Arpaly & Schroeder 1999). In this paper I will argue that those of Neoptolemus and Huck Finn are not cases of inverse akrasia (Holton manuscript) but are much better explained as instances of what Williams (1993) called “moral incapacity”. In particular, the reason why they fail to act according to their original judgments is due to a lack of motivation to act accordingly, which is grounded in their moral self-identities (Blasi 1984; Vigani 2016). The paper will unfold as follows: I will, first, argue that neither Neoptolemus nor Huck Finn show akratic behavior; thus, they cannot be legitimately labeled as “inverse akratics” (par 1.); then, I will argue that they act the way they do notwithstanding their faulty judgments because they are effectively motivated to do so. Such motivation originates in their moral self-identities and is experienced through the threat of self-betrayal (par 2); finally, I will argue that when an agent is motivated to act in a way that is integral with her moral self-identity, acting otherwise is experienced as something one cannot ultimately do; that is, as a moral incapacity (par 3). This “cannot” is neither a metaphor for an “I shouldn’t”, nor an instance of what has been recently labeled a “moral impossibility” (Caprioglio Panizza 2020, 2021), since it does not arise from the normative force of deontic judgments, and it is neither physically nor psychologically impossible for the agent to act otherwise. (shrink)

Aristotle devotes Nicomachean Ethics IX.6 to the notion of homonoia. Commonly translated as ‘concord’ or ‘like-mindedness’, homonoia is a central concept in Aristotle’s account of political friendship. I argue in this paper that Aristotle’s concept of homonoia cannot be perspicuously rendered as ‘like-mindedness’ or its cognates. For homonoia does not just involve the sameness of belief or opinion: it involves both shared commitments to the same goals and collective action aimed at realizing those goals, and cognates of ‘like-mindedness’ do not (...) bring this activity-involving component of homonoia clearly into relief. I attempt to capture this activity-involving component by presenting a novel interpretation of Aristotelian homonoia as joint commitment. My interpretation of homonoia as joint commitment offers solutions to two puzzles associated with NE IX.6. First, it establishes the function of NE IX.6 within Aristotle’s broader theory of friendship. Second, it clarifies the proper relationship between homonoia and political friendship. (shrink)

Ethics for Rational Animals brings to light a novel account of akrasia, practical wisdom, and character virtue through an original and comprehensive study of the moral psychology at the basis of Aristotle's ethics. It argues that practical wisdom is a persuasive rational excellence, that virtue is a listening excellence, and that the ignorance involved in akrasia is in fact a failure of persuasion. Aristotle's moral psychology emerges from this reconstruction as a qualified intellectualism. The view is intellectualistic because it describes (...) practical wisdom as the sort of knowledge that can govern desire and action and akrasia as involving a form of ignorance. However, Aristotle's intellectualism is qualified because practical wisdom goes beyond grasping the truth about the human good, for it must also be able to convey the truth persuasively to non-rational cognition and desires. (shrink)

In the opening chapters of Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle asserts the habits-based origin of ethical virtues. The excellence of desire is therefore a habits-based disposition, acquired through repetition of similar actions. However, in chapter 3 of Book II, Aristotle formulates the problem of the circularity involved in his theory of virtuous habits. After all, don’t you have to already be virtuous to act virtuously? If the actions by which dispositions are acquired already presuppose the latter in order (...) to be accomplished, then moral progress is impossible and useless, unless we distinguish preparatory actions from actions accomplished according to virtue. Conversely, however, to consider that non-virtuous actions lead to virtuous dispositions seems contrary to the principle of habit; moreover, it leads to the exclusion from the moral life of actions through which virtues are acquired, because they are not performed according to a virtue that has been durably acquired. This article proposes to consider these hermeneutical problems on the basis of the typology of actions offered by Aristotle’s response to this aporia of the beginning in NE II 3, which echoes other passages in NN, notably those that consider the question of responsibility through the relationship of agents and their character to the actions they commit (V 10). Such a typology of actions seems to be fruitful at two levels of interpretation. On the one hand, it allows us to consider actions that are morally qualifiable without yet being performed virtuously: in this sense, actions preparatory to virtue are part of the moral life, without however being performed according to virtue. On the other hand, this typology enables us to consider different phases of the moral life, and in particular to distinguish a first phase of practices propaedeutic to virtue from a second, more active phase, which is part of the practical life, and through which the moral agent forges his character by his own actions. (shrink)

The aim of this Dissertation is to ascertain what role reason has in determining the ends of action in Aristotle’s practical philosophy. I argue that Aristotle is committed to an answer to this question according to which full virtue (ἀρετὴ κυρία) enables one to aim for fine ends for their own sakes, decide on virtuous actions on their own account, and perform virtuous actions for their own sakes. Yet, on my reading, full virtue would not be necessary for aiming for (...) fine ends (although being virtuous in some sense turns out to be necessary for that), which is sufficient for securing that agents who are not fully virtuous such as the continent and the incontinent are able to aim for ends that are right, provided they cannot aim for such ends for their own sakes. (shrink)