Many people regularly watch horror films. While it seems clear that sporadically watching horror films will not make us bad people, if it is the main type of media that we consume, then are we still safe? I will defend most horror films from Di Muzio (2006), who worries that we are harming our moral character by watching them. Most horror films (e.g., Candyman, Get Out, and Scream) fall into what I call the summit of safe horror (SoSH), the inverse (...) of the uncanny valley effect, wherein almost-but-not-quite-human robots elicit discomfort from viewers rather than empathy. In the SoSH, violence elicits excitement rather than pity for the victims because the violence is mitigated by, among other things, comic relief and foolish choices by the characters. These narrative features allow most horror films to be intense enough to cause excitement and terror yet not so intense as to cause a negative moral attitude to form in our soul, because we feel what Aristotle would consider the appropriate amount of fear. Torture porn, a subset of horror films lacking plot and focus solely on gore (e.g., the Saw sequels), falls outside of the SoSH because it lacks these narrative features, making the violence depicted too intense to be entertaining. These films outside the SoSH will not necessarily cause an inappropriate amount of fear but are simply the only ones that could possibly do so. Caution: spoilers ahead! (shrink)

In Aristotle’s account of change, lacking a form is called privation (Physics I.7 191a14). For example, someone takes on the form of being musical only from previously having the privation of being unmusical. However, he also states that “shape and nature are spoken of in two ways, for the privation too is in a way form” (Physics II.1 193b19). I will demonstrate that these seemingly contradictory statements are not actually in tension. Since all perceptible matter must be enformed, we would (...) have trouble discussing things that have yet to undergo generation, like menstrual fluid, and things that have undergone corruption, like corpses, if we did not cite the privation as a sort of form. I will argue that, given his commitment to hylomorphism, Aristotle is committed to privation being a form in a qualified sense. It cannot be a form in an unqualified sense because privation often spoils the matter such that it can no longer be reformed. The fact of the matter is we cannot draw a bright line between privation and form because the two are contraries and can be said to hold to different degrees at different points on a spectrum. (shrink)

Aristotle lists six different hexeis (stable states of the soul) in Nicomachean Ethics Book VII. The three to be avoided are akrasia (lack of self-control), vice, and beastliness. Their mirrors, the three to be praised, are enkrateia (self-control), virtue, and superhuman virtue. While the beastial and superhumanly virtuous fall out of discussion, the other four remain a focus for most of Book VII. Aristotle thinks that he has described four reliable ways in which people act always or hōs epi to (...) polu (for the most part). However, I argue that he has only given us enough information to delineate three hexeis. On my interpretation, the akratēs (person lacking self-control) and the enkratēs (self-controlled person) are the same kind of person, they differ only in degree. They exist on a spectrum, while the other two hexeis are distinct kinds of people. While this is hardly the received view, I am convinced that it is consistent with the text. By his own lights, Aristotle does not have a description of the akratēs as differing from the enkratēs making a mistake. Therefore, I want to group them together, rather than draw a bright line between them. First, the mistake of the akratēs is very narrow. She does not know, or knows only in the way the drunk person knows, the conclusion to the good practical syllogism. Second, akrasia is only about an excess of the bodily pleasures associated with food and sex. Aristotle lists eleven other areas where her behavior is undetermined. Third, the akratēs and enkratēs lack the psychological unity that I argue the virtuous and vicious each possess. Therefore, I conclude that the akratēs and enkratēs are the same kind of person. The upshot of my view is that, because it focuses on the positives rather than the negatives, it exhorts us to be better people. (shrink)