In this paper I offer a close reading of Aristotle’s argument in the Nicomachean Ethics 3.5.1114a31–b25 and try to show that despite considerable interpretive difficulties, some clear structure can nevertheless be discerned. While Aristotle’s main concern in this passage is to refute the so-called asymmetry thesis – the thesis that virtue is voluntary, but vice is not – there is much more in it than just a dialectical encounter. Aristotle wants to respond to a more general objection, which has as (...) its target the voluntariness of both virtue and vice, and which is provoked by some of his ideas in EN 3.4 and 3.5. Further, I will try to show why Aristotle thinks that we are only co-causes of our dispositions. In my opinion, his reasons have nothing to do with compatibilist or incompatibilist considerations as they are commonly understood in modern philosophy. In particular, he does not want to argue that nature is aitios of our dispositions just as ourselves are. Rather, we are co-causes of our dispositions because we are causal origins of actions without which a certain good, which is the final cause of our actions and of our dispositions, cannot be achieved. Finally, I will try to show that Aristotle’s discussion implies that there is no more to the responsibility for dispositions than there is to the responsibility for actions. (shrink)

Aristotle claims that in some extenuating circumstances, the correct response to the wrongdoer is sungnōmē rather than blame. Sungnōmē has a wide spectrum of meanings that include aspects of sympathy, pity, fellow-feeling, pardon, and excuse, but the dominant interpretation among scholars takes Aristotle’s meaning to correspond most closely to forgiveness. Thus, it is commonly held that the virtuous Aristotelian agent ought to forgive wrongdoers in specific extenuating circumstances. Against the more popular forgiveness interpretation, I begin by defending a positive account (...) of sungnōmē as the correct judgment that a wrongdoer deserves excuse since she was not blameworthy. I then argue that since sungnōmē is merited on the grounds of fairness, this shows that both the forgiveness interpretation and a third, alternative interpretation of sungnōmē as sympathy mischaracterize both the justification for sungnōmē and its nature. Moreover, I argue that Aristotle not only lacks an account of forgiveness but in fact, that his account of blame is incompatible with forgiveness altogether. (shrink)

Aristotle’s typical procedure is to identify something's four causes. Intentional action has typically been treated as an exception: most think that Aristotle has the standard causalist account, according to which an intentional action is a bodily movement efficiently caused by an attitude of the appropriate sort. I show that action is not an exception to Aristotle’s typical procedure: he has the resources to specify four causes of action, and thus to articulate a powerful theory of action unlike any other on (...) offer. (shrink)

Uno de los principales esfuerzos de la ética aristotélica es la evaluación de las acciones y pasiones humanas. Para ser virtuosas, éstas deben ser loables, es decir, dignas de ser elogiadas por la comunidad a la que pertenece el agente. Pero para ser loables deben ser, a la vez, voluntarias y responsables. ¿Son las condiciones de la responsabilidad las mismas que las de la voluntariedad? Creo que, para Aristóteles, la voluntariedad es sólo la primera condición de la responsabilidad. La segunda, (...) tan necesaria como la primera, es la elección. Para mostrarlo, analizo las condiciones de una y otra, señalando lo que las condiciones de la elección añaden a las de la voluntariedad. Aristóteles las desarrolla en debate con la ética griega que le precede, principalmente con la de su maestro. (shrink)

Uno de los principales esfuerzos de la ética aristotélica es la evaluación de las acciones y pasiones humanas. Para ser virtuosas, éstas deben ser loables, es decir, dignas de ser elogiadas por la comunidad a la que pertenece el agente. Pero para ser loables deben ser, a la vez, voluntarias y responsables. ¿Son las condiciones de la responsabilidad las mismas que las de la voluntariedad? Creo que, para Aristóteles, la voluntariedad es sólo la primera condición de la responsabilidad. La segunda, (...) tan necesaria como la primera, es la elección. Para mostrarlo, analizo las condiciones de una y otra, señalando lo que las condiciones de la elección añaden a las de la voluntariedad. Aristóteles las desarrolla en debate con la ética griega que le precede, principalmente con la de su maestro. (shrink)

It is often claimed that in the ancient world character was believed to be something fixed, given at birth and immutable during life. This belief is said to underlie the portrayal of individuals in ancient historiography and biography, particularly in the early Roman Empire; and tc constitute the chief point of difference in psychological assumptions between ancient and modern biography. In this article, I wish to examine the truth of these claims, with particular reference to Plutarch and Tacitus.

It is often claimed that in the ancient world character was believed to be something fixed, given at birth and immutable during life. This belief is said to underlie the portrayal of individuals in ancient historiography and biography, particularly in the early Roman Empire; and tc constitute the chief point of difference in psychological assumptions between ancient and modern biography. In this article, I wish to examine the truth of these claims, with particular reference to Plutarch and Tacitus.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:“Listening to Reason”:The Role of Persuasion in Aristotle’s Account of Praise, Blame, and the VoluntaryAllen SpeightAristotle connects praise and blame closely to the voluntary, but the question of how his discussion of these terms should be construed more broadly in the context of a theory of responsibility has been much disputed. There are some well-known difficulties with the coherence of Aristotle's views in this regard: animals and children, for (...) example, are said to be voluntary agents, but are not held to be responsible;1 moreover, praise and blame seem to be important for what might be thought to be incompatible purposes—on the one hand, for behavioral improvement and correction (a usually prospective concern) and, on the other hand, for assessment of moral responsibility in terms of what an agent merits or deserves for what he or she has done (a retrospective concern).2One of Aristotle's first examples of the use of praise and blame in the Nicomachean Ethics captures some of the difficulty commentators have found in trying to understand his position. In drawing an analogy to illustrate the difference between parts of the soul, Aristotle comments that "in morally strong and morally weak men we praise (epainoumen) the reason that guides them and the rational element of the soul, because it exhorts them to follow the right path and to do what is best" (NE 1102b13-15). There is, he thus claims, an appetitive part of the soul thatpartakes of reason insofar as it complies with reason and accepts its leadership (hē(i) katēkoon estin autou kai peitharchikon); it possesses reason in the sense that we say it is "reasonable" to accept the advice of a father and of friends, not in the sense that we have a "rational" understanding of mathematical propositions. That the irrational element can be persuaded (peithetai) by the rational is shown by the fact that admonition (nouthetēsis) and all manner of rebuke (epitimēsis) and exhortation (paraklēsis) are possible. If it is correct to say that the appetitive part, too, has reason, it follows that the rational element of the soul has two subdivisions: the one possesses reason in the [End Page 213] strict sense, contained within itself, and the other possesses reason in the sense that it listens to reason as one would listen to a father.(NE 1102b31-1103a)I will argue that this image of listening and persuasion is more significant for Aristotle's conceptions of voluntariness and responsibility than is often thought. The image suggests not only that Aristotle is interested in both prospective moral education and retrospective assessments of responsibility, but that a crucial (and, in the literature to this point, quite neglected) term that he offers as a gloss for understanding his conception of the voluntary—the notion of peithō or persuasion—is in fact central to his employment of the categories of praise and blame in both prospective and retrospective senses. Aristotle's use of the concept of persuasion is not merely a casual gloss, but gives him instead an unusually helpful category for understanding the range of types of action within his philosophy of agency and how they fit within the larger scheme of parts of the soul in the Ethics and the distinctions among actions that stem from virtue, vice, moral weakness, and moral strength.In what follows, I will first examine how Aristotle uses peithō to explain the related notions of the voluntary (as to hekousion is usually translated) and the noncompulsory in the Nicomachean Ethics, III.5, and the Eudemian Ethics, II.8. I will then explore how Aristotle appeals to peithō and its cognates to address one of the most vexing problems his theory of voluntary agency must work out—the problem of akrasia and enkrateia (moral weakness and moral strength)—and, next, more widely how these related concepts become relevant for his account of the parts of the soul and gradations of action.I. Persuasion and the Voluntary (EE II.8 and NE III.5)Aristotle appears to link closely the notions of voluntariness (to hekousion)and persuasion (hē peithō).Bonitz's Index takes the two terms straightforwardly... (shrink)

European Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

Los conceptos de voluntariedad y decisión trabajados en la Ética Nicomaquea de Aristóteles permiten pensar bajo qué condiciones se atribuye la responsabilidad de una acción a una persona. Como primera condición para ello tal acción no se puede efectuar de una manera involuntaria (akô), donde se actúe por ignorancia o coacción. De esta forma se hace evidente que la responsabilidad recae sólo en un caso voluntario (hekôn), donde éste implica un decisión entre dos o más opciones. Así, en el presente (...) texto se avalúa en qué consiste el concepto de decisión, siendo éste una deliberación que lleva a una determinación o juicio (Krisis), en donde solamente se delibera lo que se esté en poder de realizar. Por ello la decisión, que se da bajo una consideración voluntaria, fundamenta la acción y de esta manera ésta última se convierte en responsabilidad de la persona que decide. (shrink)

En este artículo se ofrece un acercamiento riguroso a la ética existencial de Kierkegaard, a la vez que se muestra en qué momento se separa de la filosofía moral de Kant y opera como un correctivo de la misma. A partir de ambas concepciones de la ética es presentado el problema del actuar moral, tanto en su dimensión pura práctica (Kant y Kierkegaard), como en su dimensión existencial constitutiva (Kierkegaard), resaltando la importancia de la elección del sí mismo en conexión (...) con los principios de la moralidad. (shrink)