By Julia Annas, Alfred R. Mele, Martha C. Nussbaum, John McDowell, Richard Kraut, John M. Cooper, Rosalind Hursthouse, Nancy Sherman, J. L. Ackrill, Myles F. Burnyeat, Marcia L. Homiak, T. H. Irwin, L. A. Kosman

The ethics of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), and advantage ethics more often than not, have noticeable a resurgence of curiosity over the last few a long time. now not do utilitarianism and Kantian ethics on their lonesome dominate the ethical panorama. furthermore, Aristotelian issues fill out that panorama, with such matters because the significance of friendship and feelings in an exceptional existence, the position of ethical belief in clever selection, the character of happiness and its structure, ethical schooling and habituation, discovering a solid domestic in modern ethical debate. The essays during this quantity signify the easiest of that discuss. Taken jointly, they supply an in depth research of imperative arguments in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. yet they do greater than that. every one exhibits the long-lasting curiosity of the questions Aristotle himself subtly and complexly increases within the context of his personal modern discussions.

Show description

Read Online or Download Aristotle's Ethics: Critical Essays (Critical Essays on the Classics Series) PDF

Similar ethics books

Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals

Combining the mind of Malcolm Gladwell with the irreverent humor of Mary Roach and the paradigm-shifting research of Jared Diamond, a number one social scientist deals an unheard of glance inside of our complicated and infrequently paradoxical relationships with animals.

Does residing with a puppy rather make humans happier and more healthy? What do we research from biomedical examine with mice? Who loved a greater caliber of life—the poultry on a dinner plate or the chicken who died in a Saturday-night cockfight? Why is it mistaken to devour the family members puppy? Drawing on greater than 20 years of analysis within the rising box of anthrozoology, the technological know-how of human–animal relatives, Hal Herzog bargains extraordinary solutions to those and different questions with regards to the ethical conundrums we are facing day in and time out in regards to the creatures with whom we percentage our global.

a few we like, a few We Hate, a few We devour is a hugely interesting and illuminating trip in the course of the complete spectrum of human–animal relatives, in line with Dr. Herzog’s groundbreaking study on animal rights activists, cockfighters, specialist dog-show handlers, veterinary scholars, and biomedical researchers. mixing anthropology, behavioral economics, evolutionary psychology, and philosophy, Herzog conscientiously crafts a continuing narrative enriched with real-life anecdotes, medical study, and his personal feel of ethical ambivalence.

Alternately poignant, hard, and laugh-out-loud humorous, this enlightening and provocative booklet will endlessly swap the way in which we glance at our relations with different creatures and, finally, how we see ourselves.

Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Rethinking the Western Tradition)

"Lara Denis's sophisticated updating of Thomas Abbott's classical translation of Kant's foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals could be the top for either scholars and normal readers. Her transparent and concise creation highlights Kant's valuable claims and arguments whereas pointing the reader to the easiest of up to date Kant scholarship.

Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy

Animals evidently can't have a correct of loose speech or a correct to vote simply because they lack the correct capacities. yet their correct to lifestyles and to be freed from exploitation isn't any much less basic than the corresponding correct of people, writes Julian H. Franklin. This theoretically rigorous publication will reassure the devoted, support the doubtful to make your mind up, and arm the polemicist.

Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition

It has lengthy been stated that Jews and Christians exceptional themselves via charity to the poor. Though old Greeks and Romans have been additionally beneficiant, they funded theaters and baths instead of poorhouses and orphanages. How may possibly we clarify this difference? In this important reappraisal of charity within the biblical culture, Gary Anderson argues that the bad constituted the privileged position the place Jews and Christians met God.

Extra resources for Aristotle's Ethics: Critical Essays (Critical Essays on the Classics Series)

Example text

His choice is futile; for without the virtues these goods are not components of happiness at all. In choosing subordinate goods over virtue he shows that he misunderstands the nature of virtue and the nature of happiness. It is better to be inflexible about virtue; and to that extent we are right to prefer the inflexible to the adaptable character. Aristotle has explained why happiness is in some ways more stable than Solon noticed; why it is complete, though allowing addition; and why it is caused by virtue, though vulnerable to ill fortune.

The point is easiest to see with bravery. The brave person willingly faces the loss of external goods when bravery requires him to sacrifice his life. His friends and fellow citizens benefit if he is willing to make this sacrifice. Since his good includes the good of friends and fellow citizens, he is better off being inflexible about bravery than he would be if he were more flexible. The magnificent (megaloprepes) person is not so concerned with honour and reputation that he spends his money in ostentatious and conspicuous displays; he wants to spend it to benefit the community (1122b19-23), not merely to win admiration (1123a19-27).

D. Ross (Oxford, 1955), 146. "Is becoming" translatesgignetai. ). 27. " See also Jaeger, "Aristotle's Verses in Praise of Plato," SCripta Minora (Rome, 1960), 339-45 (from Classical Quarterly, 21 (1927), 13-17). Here (342) Jaeger ascribes to the Rep. belief in the sufficiency of virtue, citing the Gorgias and Rep. I. Significantly, he offers no evidence from the rest of the Rep. , Apology 41c-d, Crit. 48b9-1O. Here Jaeger's positions on Aristotle's view is not clear (344). 28. In this section I have benefited from criticisms and suggestions by Richard Boyd, David Brink, Eugene Garver, Mark Fowler, and WilliamWilcox.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.90 of 5 – based on 34 votes