Talk:Aristotelian ethics

Created page
I compiled this page from info I recently put on Aristotle and that which was on Nicomachean ethics but seemed to broad to fit there. It fits well here. Uriah923 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

ideas for this article
The article could certainly do with some polishing and re-structuring. I have started today. It covered many subjects multiple times and seemed to follow no particular sequence as if it was just cut and paste from snippets written for somewhere else. It also contains a lot of debateable opinions without sourcing. I have removed some of those also. Editors of this article should probably also watch Nicomachean Ethics which is being expanded to the point that it is too big. Eventually material from that article could be used to expand this article, as long as we can find ways to compress that article without distorting it. In any case that article probably already gives some ideas for this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this page needs some serious work. There were several grammatical errors and inaccuracies, and I did some trimming of these. I would prefer not to delete large portions of articles, but frankly much of it was misleading, inaccurate, or confusing and was not worthy of the time of Wikipedia's readers. In some cases, it seemed that pieces of the article written by different people had been stitched together in a way that introduced mistakes or misleading statements. Editors should pose questions on the talk page if they do not know something about the topic, but would like to contribute. I also think that this article's importance could be better explained in the course of the article. It's true that Aristotle's ethical writings have stimulated a certain style of ethical inquiry, and I think the point of this page should be (in part) to describe that influence. But right now, it does not really achieve that goal. Another possible aim, would be to explain the common themes throughout Aristotle's different ethical treatises, but this might be too ambitious, contentious, and require too much research-type activity on the part of editors. The "influence" section should deal specifically with the influence of Aristotle's ethical thinking upon others (Verazzano, 12/13/2013).


 * Thanks for working on it. Like you say it is not very good and certainly needs work. In a difficult case like this can I suggest that you keep placing updates here about what you are doing, so that other editors do not panic. Also, I find it a good idea to push myself to be careful about deleting things even if they look bad at first sight. Instead of deleting, it is often possible to perceive that there was some kind of good intention that can be preserved. Also, keep in mind that some subjects might already be handled in other Wikipedia articles which you can link to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew! I will try to continue working on it, and document what I am doing. I also agree that it's better to delete cautiously, and try to give the benefit of the doubt to any previous editors. So I will try to do that also. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my concerns. I really appreciate that. Verazzano (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Weaknesses For Improvement
Here are a list of some possible areas for improvement:


 * This article lacks adequate citation (including sections I've added, but really throughout).


 * Focus the influence section on the influence of Aristotle's ethical writings specifically. Anything about Aristotle's general influence on other philosophers (not restricted to the influence of his ethical writings) should go in the page on Aristotle, or on a separate page about his legacy -- but does not belong here.


 * Also, Aristotle's writings have influenced virtue ethics, and some specific contemporary philosophers such as Martha Nussbaum and Bernard Williams.


 * Distinguish between Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and his other ethical writings if possible. This is hard, though, since doing this would introduce "original research," but failing to do so leads to inaccurate characterizations of Aristotle's diverse, complex, and sometimes difficult-to-interpret ethical thinking. Still, it is misleading to write as if Aristotle's views come from nowhere when he may say different things in different treatises.


 * Try to make the focus or aim of the article a little clearer. Right now, I'm not really sure what this page adds.

Verazzano (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * These seem good obvious aims! In terms of finding sources which contrast Eudemian and Nicomachean ethics, sources which are primarily about the Eudemian Ethics are more likely to focus on this. What about the Magna Moralia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes made:


 * Reference to virtue ethics as an area of influence of his ethical philosophy, with a link to that Wikipedia page.


 * Reference for Kenny's volume on the Eudemian Ethics added.


 * Reference for article re: authenticity of MM added.

Verazzano (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Possibly a helpful source:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)



Thank you Andrew! Good suggestion. I'll see if I can get a hold of it. More citations directly to Aristotle's texts would also improve the page, and that's pretty easy for me to do -- at least for the Nicomachean Ethics. And possibly I'll try to get ahold of a copy of the Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia also. Verazzano (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Notice that it is almost completely available online. Click on the link. I think you should also be able to find good reference versions of Aristotle's works. Nicomachean Ethics is certainly on the Perseus Project webpage for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all of the sections in the article are equally represented, some being more developed than others. When discussing objections to Aristotle's function argument, the article does not go into detail about this topic, merely using one sentence in an attempt to explain the counter-argument while other topics under this section of the article are explained more thoroughly. Furthermore, another example of this problem can be seen when the article is discussing the highest good. In this section the article offers numerous quotes in order to demonstrate the main point of the section; however, only one line is offered after the main quotes are presented. This demonstrates how not all of the quotes throughout the article are developed and explained as fully as others which leads the article to be less developed, not explaining the evidence it is using.Mizamor (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)mizamor

Which is the Highest Good? Practical Excellence or Contemplation?
Andrew -- I will look to see if I can find articles debating whether Aristotle thinks philosophical contemplation is the highest good. Verazzano (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have a reasonably high confidence that there is no major debate about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. This dispute relates partly to the textual unity of the Nicomachean Ethics. Some scholars regard NE X as an addition that is not consistent with the rest of the NE. For a brief comment on the lack of unity of the NE, see Jonathan Barnes, "Roman Arsitotle," in Philosophia Togata II (Clarendon Press: 1997) pg. 59, note 252.

The function argument in NE I may be interpreted as trying to show that the human function is some kind of excellent exercise of the intellect -- leaving open both possibilities -- practical activity, *or* contemplative activity -- without yet specifying which is actually the true human function (which is then specified in NE X). But in the NE I argument, Aristotle uses the Greek adjective "praktikos" to characterize the distinctively human exercise of reason, which creates a problem for this "unspecified excellent exercise of reason" interpretation. Gabriel Richardson Lear has argued that practical activity somehow indirectly aims at contemplative activity, but I find it implausible Aristotle believed anything so convoluted and odd (simply inconsistency seems more plausible to me).

The fact that Aristotle associates contemplation with a Godlike life also creates problems for viewing this as the fulfillment of a specifically human function. It is also difficult that in the Politics, Aristotle says that man is by nature a political animal. If the perfection of man is through philosophy, this characterization seems surprising. One needn't assume that Aristotle's views are consistent in all of his writings, but NE I-IX seems to share the assumption that man is practical and political by nature, and that he fulfills his function through practical activity in the community.

Julia Annas writes: "1 am standing aside from the dispute as to whether in Book I Aristotle is indicating that the best life is the life of theoretical contemplation and, if so, how this relates to the passage on the life of contemplation in Book X. (For my own view of this dispute, see chapter 9 n.l.) The issues I am dealing with do not depend on resolution of this problem. For extensive discussion of it see Kraut (1989)." See Annas, The Morality of Happiness (1993) pg. 366, note 7. I will try to track down some more substantial references. Verazzano (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you find a source which says more clearly that there is any dispute. I can't imagine it, because Aristotle is very clear in what he says, and it is often discussed in secondary sources. I have never heard of it being debated. I can imagine debates about the details, what you are apparently referring to as convolutions, but Aristotle clearly says that the life of contemplation is the highest one. What confuses people is apparently the complexity which comes from the fact that the life of contemplation as envisaged by the Socratics is apparently not monastic and purely contemplative, but practical as well. Practical wisdom makes theoretical wisdom possible, as Aristotle puts it, and for latter to exist the other also has to exist already.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

More issues

 * As far as I know, Aristotle never draws a formal distinction between theory and practice. What he does do is classify some areas of knowledge as practical (rhetoric, poetics, ethics), and some others as theoretical. That could be stated, although it's not clear to me that this is all that important, but I don't think his distinction between theory and practice can be stated without some kind of explanation.


 * Aristotle does think that there is a specific correct action in a specific set of circumstances, not that the right action is indeterminate. This is a common and understandable misunderstanding, since Aristotle is unusual in supposing that moral rules or laws of universal application cannot be used to generate the correct action in various situations. Instead, he thinks that there is a correct action in some particular situation, but that only the practically wise man with full character virtue will be able to see the right thing, and then actually also do it.


 * It's rare that scholars characterize Aristotle as a "Socratic" thinker. Since this is a minority view, it needs to be justified, and it needs to be made clear in the article that not all scholars would characterize Aristotle this way. It's not clear to me a whole section of the article should be devoted to this, but if it is, I think it should be later/lower on the page, and the controversial nature of this characterization should be emphasized.

Verazzano (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Published sources about Aristotle surely treat the distinction between theory and practice as key to understanding Aristotle, and frankly so does Aristotle. I can not think of a place immediately where he defines what he means, but it permeates what he writes. Anyway, we have to follow what conventional sources say and report controversies as well. Concerning needing to explain it more, the easiest thing to do to start with is to wikilink for example to the theory article. (But also because this article is not too long we can maybe explain a bit more here if you prefer. In any case try to avoid deleting imperfect material.)
 * Not sure what part of the article your second bullet refers to?
 * I do not at all think that it is rare for Aristotle's Socratic roots to be discussed as part of the way to understand him, but maybe the point can be presented differently. Certainly Aristotle is strongly influenced by Plato, and apparently by others influenced by Socrates, and he mentions Socrates reasonably often. Anyway concerning ethics, I think that it is quite mainstream to say that Aristotle was the first to use the term, whereas ethics starts with Socrates and is a reaction to his challenge to philosophy. It is quite common to refer to "pre Socratic" philosophers as "Natural philosophers" for example. Do you agree that the ethics is "post Socratic" in nature?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Cardinal virtues
As I see it, the paradigm of cardinal virtues simply does not apply to Aristotle who composes his virtues in an entirely different way (the distinction between ethical and theoretical virtues, the "social" virtues of magnanimity and beneficence, the relation between φρόνησις and σοφία just to name a few).

References to the cardinal virtues (their constitution, character and parts) is prevalent in the litterature, but only to a limited degree in Aristotelian scholarship (and usually restricted to short remarks). The so-called cardinal virtues are probably to be found in some form or another in Plato, but it seems to me much more doubtful whether you could even talk about cardinal virtues in Aristotle. The most obvious reason for that would be that his list of virtues is not restricted to the four orthodox cardinal virtues. We might find some indirect (and dispersed) indications that two or three of the orthodox virtues play a central role to Aristotle, but in my view it would be very difficult to defend a clear-cut and unmistakable unity of the four cardinal virtues as being of a higher order or priority than his other virtues.

So it surprises me to find the cardinal virtues highligted in the manner of this article. Especially since there is no clear trace of them neither in Aristotle nor the scholarly litterature on his ethics. Further, the description of the four virtues seems rather out of place in the article, and no explanation is given about their role, place and possible presence in the Aristotelian corpus. It would be more natural to present the practical/ethical virtues and theoretical virtues in separate sections reflecting Aristotle's own presentation.

My suggestion would this be
 * To rewrite the "Justice" section to a presentation of the ethical virtues (excluding any mention of the cardinal virtues or modifying it into a discussion of whether they actually exist in Aristotle).
 * To add a section on the intellectual virtues leading into the seciton on the highest good.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aristotelian ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231020958/http://www.londonmet.ac.uk:80/depts/lgir/casep/research-resources/aristotelian-ethics/aristotelian-ethics_home.cfm to http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/depts/lgir/casep/research-resources/aristotelian-ethics/aristotelian-ethics_home.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethics
Intellectual virtues and moral virtue 158.62.66.192 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)