ABSTRACT: This paper serves two purposes: (i) it can be used by students as an introduction to chapters 1-5 of book iii of the NE; (ii) it suggests an answer to the unresolved question what overall objective this section of the NE has. The paper focuses primarily on Aristotle’s theory of what makes us responsible for our actions and character. After some preliminary observations about praise, blame and responsibility (Section 2), it sets out in detail how all the key notions (...) of NE iii 1-5 are interrelated (Sections 3-9). The setting-out of these interconnections makes it then possible to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the purpose of the passage. Its primary purpose is to explain how agents are responsible for their actions not just insofar as they are actions of this kind or that, but also insofar as they are noble or base: agents are responsible for their actions qua noble or base, because, typically via choice, their character dispositions are a causal factor of those actions (Section 10). The paper illustrates the different ways in which agents can be causes of their actions by means of Aristotle’s four basic types of agents (Section 11). A secondary purpose of NE iii 1-5 is to explain how agents can be held responsible for consequences of their actions (Section 12), in particular for their character dispositions insofar as these are noble or base, i.e. virtues or vices (Section 13). These two goals are not the only ones Aristotle pursues in the passage. But they are the ones Aristotle himself indicates in its first sentence and summarizes in its last paragraph; and the ones that give the passage a systematic unity. The paper also briefly consider the issues of freedom-to-do-otherwise, free choice and free-will in the contexts in which they occur (i.e. in the final paragraphs of Sections 6, 7, 12, 13). (shrink)

This paper examines Aristotle’s argument in Eudemian Ethics 1.8 that eudaimonia, the best practicable good, is the telos of the practicable goods. Aristotle defers to the Platonists in thinking that the best practicable good is the first practicable good and the cause of the other practicable goods’ goodness. But, on his view, it is the telos of the practicable goods that has these two properties. Aristotle’s argument for this latter claim is supported by his view, more fully discussed in Posterior (...) Analytics 2.11, of how final causes explain normative facts. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Recent discussions of practice in this Journal have appealed to what they describe as the classical concept of practice. In this paper, it is argued that if there is a single classical concept of practice, it has not been described with sufficient clarity for it to be of use in illuminating or correcting anything, even our ‘radically ambiguous’ common-sense understanding of educational practice; and that there are writers today whose understanding of practical wisdom is far superior to that of (...) the modern philosophers whose treatment of the topic has been relied upon. (shrink)

Przedmiotem tego artykułu jest rozjaśnienie sensu aporii „czy można być niesprawiedliwym wobec samego siebie?”, którą Arystoteles rozważa w EN V, oraz wykazanie, że możliwe jest dobrowolne traktowanie niesprawiedliwie samego siebie. Na uwagę zasługują szczególnie dwa miejsca V 9, czyli ustępy 1136a31-1136b1 oraz 1136b13-25. W pierwszym ustępie Arystoteles wysuwa hipotezę, że akratyk może dobrowolnie traktować niesprawiedliwie samego siebie. W drugim przedstawia dwa argumenty - „z pozornej straty” oraz „z życzenia” - które mają za zadanie udowodnienie, że nikt nie może traktować niesprawiedliwie (...) samego siebie. Argumenty te nie unieważniają hipotezy wysuniętej w pierwszym ustępie ani nie wykluczają możliwości dobrowolnego traktowania niesprawiedliwie samego siebie. (shrink)

This project explores the topic of dependency of happiness on external goods in Nicomachean Ethics. In this project I defend the following thesis: the dependency of happiness on external goods, in EN, is interpreted in the light of its political self-sufficiency, and in the light of our political humanity; this dependency is of three kinds: 1) enhancing-instrumental, 2) constitutive, and 3) subsistent. The political self-sufficiency of happiness means that, the ultimate good of man, the good of the ruling science of (...) Politics, is self-sufficient based on the self-sufficiency of the city. According to Aristotle, every human being, by nature, is political. The nature of every human being is fundamentally relational. We are what we are, among and with others in the city. This constitutive political human nature functions best only in the city. Based on this political anthropology I interpret the dependency of the human political good on external goods in EN. (shrink)

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)