Ethics Books

Plato... Descartes, Nietzsche, Heidegger... the whole pseudo-science of philosophy never really has added anything to real scientific knowlegde in my opinion as it's only about opportune, highly culture-bound, time-sensitive personal views; and within that context the view of a garbage collector has the same worth to me these days as some read-it-all ethic. So I am definitely not "into" human sciences like philosphy - as an artist painter have to read/see all of course - but I'll make an exception toward Animal Others (yeah, my 1st review ever!).

In a field where the just mentioned opportune human thought estranges more and more from natural reality into ethic-technical constructions, Animal Others stands the barricade. Full of new - or probably carefully ignored! - insights, there is no other publication like it to compare at the moment to my knowlegde. The compilation of Animal Others shuns no taboos for a start. No... I won't give anything away here, but just thought of a good hint: it advocates "animal rights" while making a laugh at contemporary animal-rights-philosophers like Barbara Noske, or downright loonies in that field like Carol Adams and the PETA-like organisations. Yup, it's often hilarious reading as well!

Having read Animal Others I think there might be an increasing chance that contemporary western culture - of which it is an exponent of course - will find back its roots in the animal kingdom. After all we're just another mammal species. It's at least interesting to see that recently publications like this one and for example (by B. Bagemihl) appear on the shelves....

Animal Others; there's only one editorial flaw in it that I can think of; it should be "Animal Sames". We're all one! Therefor: full marks.

I thought that this book offered a new look at animal issues and animal ethics. It is also entertaining and readable. Some of the philosophy can be difficult for a novice but it is worth working through it all. I hope that more books like this on such an important topic get published in the future. Thanks!

I almost didn't buy this book because I was put off by it's cover. It just looked outdated.
But I own just about everything written about animal rights so I picked it up to add to my library.
It has turned out to be one of my favorite books because it's beautifully written with excellent logic.
If you have ever had difficulty explaining your position on an animal rights issue, to a non-animal person, read this book.
And then read it again.
A perfect blend of logic, ethics and moral behavior.

I purchased B.Rollin's book to help me write an animal rights paper for my Business Law class. I found myself totally engrossed in the book. It was wonderfully written, and had so much information that writing my paper was a breeze. But I recommend this book for anyone who is an animal lover and disagrees with product testing on animals. It will definately open your eyes.

In this clearly argued book, Rowlands claims that it is simply unjust to harm animals. As conscious, sentient beings, biologically continuous with humans, they have interests that simply can't be ignored. Using simple principles of justice, he argues that animals have moral rights, and examines the consequences of this claim in context to vegetarianism, animal experimentation, zoos, hunting, as well as the animal rights activism that has resulted from the recognition by a fairly small group of political activists that animals can't simply be considered in relation to humans.

I used this book this semester in a course "Ethics & Animals Like Us" (the course title was inspired by this book). The students really liked the book. I think they found him much more readable, easy-to-understand and convincing than Tom Regan or Peter Singer. Rowlands has a rather "hip" writing style as well; more enjoyable than standard academic prose.

Rowland's moral perspective is basically this: an action is morally OK only if you'd be willing to allow it to happen *IF* you didn't know who you were. So, racist actions are wrong because you wouldn't want people to treat you that way if you were of race X; sexist actions are wrong because you wouldn't want to be treated that way if you were of sex Y.

Similarly, if you didn't know if you were a human or a non-human, would you want a system might allow you to suffer greatly and die young so that others could experience the (comparatively trivial) pleasures of eating you? Or would you want a system where you could be tortured and killed in a lab to satisfy some scientists' curiosity, or electrocuted or gassed so someone could wear your skin and try to look cool (but actually look like an idiot)? Definitely not! Rowlands argues that since it would be irrational to choose such a world -- if you didn't know your species -- it's immoral for these things to happen in the actual world. Basically, it comes down to seeing things from the others' point of view, walking in their shoes (or paws).

This is a really great book (the forward by Colin McGinn is excellent as well); everyone should read it and see practical ethics at its best. It should be yet another thorn in the side of those who who torture and kill animals for fun and profit, as well as those who support them, and have nothing of any merit to say in their own defense.

One thing the book lacks is a "for further reading". ...

I've grown very accustomed to defending the Biblically-based ideas of Andrew Linzey to those "Christians" who know little about God's Word and even less of His love and mercy, and this compilation is a wonderful addition to his impressive list of writings. This was the book that first introduced me to him, and others, in this fascinating field of Biblical thought. Highly recommended!

In 'Animals on the Agenda', Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto have put together a good collection of essays and articles on the study of animals and theology. American and European contributors have come together to discuss questions that often perplex people from childhood onward -- do animals have souls? What is the proper attitude toward animals? Are they merely resources, or do they have rights?

Much of theology divides the world into two classes -- creation and humanity; animals almost always get lumped in with the rest of creation, with little or no recognition of the sentient character of their being. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism still propagate ideas that are harmful to animals -- although, in the kosher laws of Judaism, respect of the living character of animals has always had a certain prominence, and more recently Christianity has dealt with the idea of animals as a valuable part of creation, worthy of respect and not merely exploitation by humanity.

This book is primarily one of Christian theological perspectives -- I mention Judaism because many of the issues overlap, and many of the essays in this text will be informative for people of both traditions.

This is not to say that the Christian or Jewish perspective must embrace vegetarianism, or suddenly convert to a radical elevation of the animal kingdom above that of humanity. While many Eastern religions have historically and theologically embraced what Westerners often consider an extreme point of view on animals, there is insight to be gained from them, as well. For 2000 years in the Christian tradition, and longer in the Jewish tradition, animals have had not only a low status, but often no status.

'Animals are subordinate to humankind, who have been given 'dominion' (commonly understood as despotism) over them. How far these ideas are distinctly or authentically Christian is beside the point; the fact is that the Christian tradition has propagated them--and still defends them.'

Does an ethical sensitivity to animals represent a rejection of traditional theology? Many saints have been represented as having close, harmonious relations with animals (and not just St. Francis). It is true that most moral and systematic theologies have ignored animals, or relegated them to nothing more than a tool. Interestingly, Linzey states that the current state of theology is more open to the idea of aliens than to animals. In the speculation about possible life beyond the earth, some theologians already allow access to the divine.

'Such theological open-mindedness, not to mention open-heartedness, to other non-human alien species is hardly ever directed to other non-human but non-alien animal species.'

This collection is very much a beginning. By looking at scriptural perspectives on animals in the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, church traditional perspectives (both catholic and protestant), examining disputed questions such as 'do animals have souls?' and 'what is the purpose of animal suffering?', and finally looking at ethical obligations to animals, this collection is a pioneering work that opens the door to further, more fruitful discussions in modern theology of the place of animals.

The title of the final essay, 'Is the Consistent Ethic of Life Consistent without a Concern for Animals?' perhaps best sums up the approach -- life in its diversity must include animals. This is not to elevate them above the place of humanity, or even to put them on an equal footing in all things, but to give them their rightful place, and proper compassion and respect.

Dr. Israel demonstrates his mastery of the law as applied to the mental health professions. His writing style is engaging and articulate. The case scenarios can apply to any practitioner's in the behavioral health field. This book is a welcome addition to this area of expertise. We look forward to other books in this area by Dr. Israel.

An exceptional book for the practicing clinician. Clear and to the point, I found this to be a book I recommended to colleagues and especially to new clinicians I was training and supervising. The guidelines for ethical decisions are not academic but realistic. I also appreciated that the case illustrations applied to rural and small town life . Highly readable and useable this is a book for every clinician's library.

The Architects Of Rap: Poison In Our Culture by Les Taha is a stinging, articulate, timely denouncement of the negative influences that rap and hip-hop culture and lyrics have on African Americans today, ranging from its portrayal of stereotyped violence, to promiscuity, to criminality among black people, to its glorification of despicable and inhumane behavior. Pen-and-ink cartoons add a satirical punch to this strident, much-needed "wake-up" call concerning how prejudice and poisonous values influence our impressionable youth through the guise of rap and hip-hop.

It has been a while since I have heard from someone who have entered the world were most are afraid to go, HIP HOP. My salutation to brother Taha for being bold enough to tell the truth. We as older A/A men have failed our communities and the disgusting words of rap music are the result our negligence. Our young men who are making grand theft money are really destroying themselves and the young fertile minds that are listening to these sick words due to their lack of knowledge of self. You can't know you self and say the the disrespectful lyrics that come out of their mouths. You can't know yourself and display their bodies in the manner that they do and realyy think they have sense because they make money. Reality with common sense does not exist in the world of Hip Hop. As Brother Taha so eloquently stated the music is what brings us to the table but the vulgar and immorale language is disgusting. Our true make up as humans are really words. We are merely a culmination of words that our minds have heard over the years from birth to now. Every single word that goes into our heads must have a reaction. If we feed negative and immoral words into our KING(dome) what comes out are the same negatives that go in especially if we don't have a good knowledge base.
As the old saying goes you are what you eat that is physically as well as mentally. We must began to war against the powers that be to fight off this destruction of the A/A mind an that war starts at home. Gathering troops will be difficult when you find millions of young women who are still children in their thinking and are bring more young troops into this hip hop battle becasue they don't have a clue. We have very little to fight with except the truth. We as OG's must find a way to attract these gifted young men and women to the table and began to share with them a master plan that we all can support are this battle will be lost and we will continue this immoral downfall. The Architect of this detrimental behavior have also infected other cultures now so they have a powerful Army standing up for what they think is right.
If we are to save our babies and put the forces of wrong on the track to retreat we have some serios times ahead of us that will not reflect a rosy future for any of us.
It is time for the MODERN DAY ACHIEVERS to stand up and lets remake our world with a new way of thinking,speaking and wearing our clothes and let those so called brothers and sisters who take your money and give it right back to the Master. We must began to pool our resources to create food centers, mechanism to buy the housing in our communities so that we will have communities and develop clothing thats demonstrates class and not a thuggish look. We should began to boycott all foolishiness and negative influences and quit letting people with our own color continue to sell us bags of garbage Lets Tell Ebony,Essence,Vibe etc. an any other Magazine to quit promoting these people,quit promoting alcohol/cigarette ads, and showing our beautiful women and men half naked in thier publication and respect our childrens minds for the future. Onces and for all lets quit telling people that sex sales. We have a long way to go to reestablish morality and common sense back into the minds of society. We should create a National Cortisium with a twenty-fifty year plan to change our condition. I am working with brothers on such a program currently.
Let us quit being used by the MASTER ARCHITECT!!!!!! Thank you Bro Taha for letting us all know that the truth shall set us free.
R.A Salaam

Kelvin Knight puts his readers greatly in debt for this masterful and erudite study of the history of Aristotelian philosophy, with particular emphasis on MacIntyre's place in that history. Notwithstanding his disclaimers in the conclusion, Knight has in fact produced a clear account of "the conceptual subtleties and political implications" of MacIntyre's Aristotelianism elsewhere unmatched. And Knight really knows his MacIntyre, drawing on some 100 of his publications in this explication. An especially welcome element of the study is the manner in which Knight shows us the continuity of MacIntyre's early engagement with Marx and his latest work, an important corrective against political conservatives' misemployment of MacIntyre's work. Indeed, Knight finds MacIntyre's political philosophy to remain revolutionary. A great book on the most important ethical philosopher of our time.

Written by Kelvin Knight (senior lecturer in politics, London Metropolitan University), Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre is a scholarly intellectual history of Aristotelian philosophy, and its long-running importance up to the present day. Chapters explore the theoretical bases behind what Aristotle said about ethical, political and productive activity; Aristotle's practical philosophy as well as his theoretical philosophy; and applications of his ideas in settings ranging from medieval Christian times to Germany to revolutionary Aristotelianism in modern history including MacIntyre's Marxism. At times highly technical due to its depth and nuance of complex concepts, Aristotelian Philosophy is a welcome addition to college library and philosophical studies shelves.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Topic of Metaphysics is Ousia=substance and being. What is the meaning of being? With respect to matter and form, it is primarily about form. Analytically both can be separate and distinct, but not in reality. One can analyze matter by potentiality and actuality. Matter can't answer the question of being without form. Some natural things are always a composite of matter and form, it is the answer to the question of what is ousia or being in nature. Matter by itself can't give us the answer to what a thing is.

Ousia=substance and being. Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia. This is contrary to Plato. Categories vs. Metaphysics. We can talk of the "being" as quality as "not white." Being spoken of in many ways but only of one thing, i.e., "the focal being." Word being has flexibility. Other flexible words is essence. (the what it is to be). In Greek for Aristotle, a bed is not an Ousia because it is from techne=craft it can have an essence. Ousia is reserved for material things self manufactured in nature. All things are derived from a primary ousia.
This has to do with focal being, health is such a word. When we talk about different aspects of health, it is not a universal definition like Socrates looks for. Aristotle says you can't find it. Thus, the word "being" is just a word in a sense a focal point like the word health, i.e. healthy skin, healthy food, then there is health, for Socrates what is health. Aristotle says no, health is unity by analogy. Aristotle is OK with using examples. Math is not independent knowledge, it is dependent on things math is not a primary existence. Being is neither a universal nor a genus, (genus is animal in hierarchy). It is as though Aristotle wants to say that the primary meaning of being is the "this" the subject, i.e. Socrates not human all by itself, not animal all by itself.

Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia. This is contrary to Plato. Categories vs. Metaphysics. "This" is ontologically primary. Ontological= the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being.

In the categories discussion, he doesn't talk about the distinction between matter and form, it comes later on in the Physics and then the Metaphysics. The "this" is ontologically primary in terms of what the "being" something, what something is. Why would it be wrong to say that primary ousia can't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge, it can't be the distinction between ontological and epistemological? Why would it be wrong to say that the "this" the perceptible encounter wouldn't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge? Because, whatever the categories are whatever the notions of say "horse" the "this" is a horse, the "this" is ontologically primary, but it can't be epistemologically primary because a "this" by itself is just a "this" the question "What is this" called a horse is to involve the categories of knowledge. Therefore, from a knowledge standpoint, secondary ousia, which is things like categories and context, they have primacy in knowledge. However, from the standpoint of "being" the perceptible "this" has primacy. This is just a technical way of distancing him from Plato. In the Metaphysics, the question of form is primary Ousia. Ousia =form in Metaphysics. In Metaphysics, the "this" is simply matter. Aristotle did not give up on Ousia as form. This matter and form is never separated for Aristotle, thus a composite of matter and form is in the Metaphysics. In realm of nature, form and matter can't be separated for Aristotle. If you only talk about matter, you have nothing definable. You never come across things without their form. God is only exception to form and matter together.

Ousia as form and essence. The essence of a thing is "what" it is, it gives us knowledge. Definition= essence. Bronze can't be essence of circle, the form is important, not the matter.
Can't use abstract math to explain a human. When it comes to knowledge, we must emphasize the ousia as form. It isn't that first you have material things, and then the mind adds form to it, whatever the particular thing is, it always was that form. Then when we learn about it, we actually just discover what the thing is. Therefore, it is a process of coming to understand the universal, the essence, but that was always there in the thing, it just needed to be done. So what he is emphasizing in the Metaphysics is the idea of ousia as form, as some kind of essence, but never separated from matter!

Ousia --1. Grammatically basic. 2. Ousia As Ontologically basic, something that exists in its own right. The 1st example is how humans speak, the 2nd example is how things really are, both are both side of the same coin.

Principle of Noncontradiction
Arche= principle, beginning and rule. Aristotle thought that this was the firmest of all principles. It is impossible for the same thing to both belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time to the same thing in the same respect. An important governing thought in Western philosophy. A thing is what it is, it can't be equal to its opposite. Aristotle thought reality was organized this way. It has to do with both knowledge and being. Aristotle states that if this principle is true then it is the firmest of all principles both for knowledge and reality. In the same respect, what does it mean? It shifts depending on circumstances. From standpoint of knowledge and reality principle of noncontradiction is stable. The three factors of the principle are: the same thing, in the same time, in the same respect, is what Aristotle is calling the principle of noncontradiction. In order for knowledge to be reliable, these factors are in play. Can't be going up and down a hill at the same time. 1 of 3 factors has changed, time. A "hill" is both up and down but meaningless unless you think in relation of motion. Aristotle believes when it comes to knowledge and reality the principle of noncontradiction is most basic and most fundamental and evident principle, because without it we can't communicate or think about things. Aristotle explains well how we lead our life by the principle a very pragmatic explanation. This is a principle we live by as humans thus, no one can deny it!
If you talk about change as a potentiality, you have a way of solving the puzzle. This actually serves as a slap at Renee Descartes in the future wondering if he is conscious or in a dream state. All philosophy stems from wonder and puzzlement. Aristotle makes distinction between worthy puzzles or useless ones.

Emphasis between primary and secondary being, Ousia.
For Aristotle Ousia or being is not just a thing, many ways being can be understood. Primary Ousia is things perceptible in nature. Secondary Ousia or being is sometimes being is how we understand things, i.e., big or small, etc, this is how we talk about things. He stretches the way Ousia in many ways. Matter can't be primary being like atomists, nor form alone like Platonists. However, when we analyze beings, we can use secondary being. Idea of "is" or "being" will shift depending on what you are talking about. The term "being" has plurality to it, depending on how we regard it (like using a hammer as a paperweight). Even though Metaphysics emphasizes form, it is "this form." Primary thing is the "this."

He wants to move away from Plato's idea that we can separate matter from form. A things essence is going to be the ultimate answer to the question of what is being. However, a things essence can't be separated from its statement of thing, it is almost as though that this essence is going to mean the definition of a thing, "what it is." Then in some respects, it has the characteristics of a secondary being. If you want to know what is the big deal about the perceptible "this," the primary ousia? Again, and again, the best way you can get a handle on that is he is critiquing Plato! He wants to move away from Plato's idea that it is possible to understand beings apart from the material world. Aristotle does make certain commitments; he makes certain commitments to the idea that the primary sense of being must be used in nature that are evident to us.

The Platonist in Aristotle says if the mind desires and is naturally inclined to pursue knowledge and he gives us a map how does it acquire knowledge. The Platonist in Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that if all there is, is matter and form then there is always an element of elusiveness in things because matter cannot fully deliver how we know things. When he gets to the question of the Divine, he does so because he believes that the natural desire of the mind can know that it will not have a final resting place with respect to just composite things. Especially since these composite things are always changing because nature is the realm of movement and change and the idea of form will at least give us access to how we can know changing things and actuality and potentiality. Changing things will always have this element of excess, beyond the minds capacity to grasp.

His talk of the Divine is the idea that there is something in reality that will satisfy the minds' desire for the ultimate stable resting point. If change were the last word, the mind could never come to rest. This is what Heraclitus argued for, Aristotle didn't like it. He wants to grasp the final. For him the Divine is satisfaction for the mind to grasp reality.
Uber Ousia. Aristotle here is talking about 2 senses of eternity.

1. Endless time.
2. Timelessness. 1st is never begins, never ends this is eternity or infinity. 2nd is in order to understand whole world there has to be something, the unmoved mover.

Ideas of potentiality and actuality criticizes Platonic idea. Potentiality has idea of negation in it. Thus, a thing in nature always has actuality; we are always on the move. Divine is pure form and actuality without matter and potentiality. Ontology now moves to theology. This is his theological science. (Theology in the Metaphysics is speaking about God for Aristotle). In reality, composite of form and matter is always in motion until it ends. Any actualization has potentiality it is prior. Actuality is prior to potentiality; this is his ultimate metaphysical statement. Two ways Aristotle proves this idea. 1st is human reproduction brings us into being. Our parents actually reproduced us. 2nd is God the ultimate sense of actuality prior to potentiality.

Talking about other philosopher's ideas. Hesiod question of the Gods in poetry, night comes before day, thus we don't have access in the "dark" symbolic of precedence of something unknowable, and Aristotle doesn't like it. Thus, for him he has the unmoved mover.
The pure actuality of the Divine is Aristotle's nominee for the principal that explains why there is this movement in the first place. Limitation in nature is matter which is unstable but all things in nature strive to their potential. Thus, you have pure actuality of Divine. God is Prime mover or final cause not efficient cause for Aristotle.

Rational and non-rational potentiality. This is how Aristotle recognizes the phenomenology of human thought. What rational means here is human drama of seeking what might or not work out. Now rational is stable when you heat water it boils no other potentiality. Thus, non-rational movement is very regular. Human reason is precarious we may not use potentiality to reach actuality. When we practice medicine, it might not work out.

Theoria=contemplation. There are three kinds of ousia, all are a study of secondary ousia in some way.

1. Physics-study of material and moveable.
2. Mathematical-study of ousia that is non-moving, (1+1=2 always), but is derived from matter.
3. Theology is study of ousia that is non-moving and non-material.

This is scheme of understanding the nature of understanding something. 3rd level is big for Aristotle. 1st two levels have limitations to them. We begin from wonder (ignorance) philosophy is to illuminate wonder with answers. He doesn't deny Greek deities but the way poets depict them is deficient.

Movement is a way of understanding change we see this in the Physics. Movement is actualization of potential. Psuche=soul which is the word he uses for life. Things in nature that are alive. Soma=body. Plato separates soul from body, Aristotle doesn't. Aristotle's text De Anima is on "The Soul" is a philosophical biological treatise. We have three-part soul, plant, animal and human all are part of this.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Terence Irwin is to be thanked and congratulated for translating a difficult work by Aristotle and for providing over one hundred pages of notes that helps the student to understand and appreciate Aristotle's classic work on Ethics.

Irwin's notes are thorough and allow a person to study the Ethics without a professor. Most of us, however, need a teacher when it is time to read Aristotle. And a teacher who uses Irwin's translation will be greatly appreciated by students. I become convinced of this each semester since my college Ethics class is centered on Aristotle's Ethics and Irwin makes my job much, much easier.

Here's what I've learned. Why does Aristotle think that the life of pleasure is not the best life?

Pleasure is not the highest good for Aristotle because:
1. Happiness is continuous and pleasure is not (1177 a 20);
2. Pleasure is good and allows us to get back to the hard work of virtue (1175 a 20);
3. The philosopher should learn how to make the hard work of virtue pleaurable (1176 a 1);
4. Pleaure is a limited action of the body but happiness is the unlimited action of the mind (1177 b
25);
5. Pleasure is a tool for happiness, just as money, power, fame, beauty and priviledge (1099 b 1);
6. And happy people know that the best pleasure is found in friendship (1155 a 5).

Next, whether the life of pleasure might be excellent? Yes, since
1. The happy and excellent person can usually figure out the genuine cause of pleasure (1174 a 15);
2. Pleasure is natural and necessary for life (1172 b 10);
3. But there's more to life than amusing oneself all day (1176 b 35). What is there more to life? Making pleasure inferior to friendship, since friends will encourage us to do the hard work of virtue.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

This book is the first intro to Aristotle I have read which really seems like an intro --- and is really clear. Pakaluk takes it seriously --- and the introduction in the book is worth the price of the book alone. This is a great way to get a course on the Ethics that you never got in college. Pakaluk is one of the world's experts on the topic and reading the book you understand why. Get a good translation of the Ethics, sit down with this introduction, and it will get you through the Ethics as if you were in college again. Except it will make sense this time.

I love this book! It's an instant artists community at your finger tips. I love all the little gems of wisdom from fellow artists who are out in the world making it a more beautiful place. After reading it all the way thru I am keeping it on my desk where I can pick it up and flip thru it to find a helpful perspective or reminder of why it is I do what I do.

As a professional artist I found this book to contain many practical guideposts. Most working artists are extremely focused when it comes to their work; not so much when it comes to the business end of things. The Artist's Tao dispenses simple but profound reminders that art is no different than any other profession...to succeed requires dedication and purpose. This little book is a must for both the Seasoned Professional and Novice to stay on course.