Is There Any Theory of Value in Aristotle’s Ethics?

Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 23)

Abstract

Raising questions concerning what could be an Aristotelian theory of value doesn’t necessarily mean that Aristotle is a precursor of the “Wertphilosophie”. This would be a sheer anachronism. On the practical horizon we can get a more hierarchical organization of the goals we are up to. The ὄρεξις, intentional project, we live by, is motivated positively by goals we choose to pursue: the glory (τὸ καλόν), the useful (τὸ συμφέρον), and the pleasure (τὸ ἡδύ). On the contrary, we try to avoid the opposite ones: the disgrace (τὸ αἰσχρόν), the damage (τὸ βλαβερόν), and the painful (τὸ λυπερόν). But what qualifies values? Is it not through a relationship we build up with ourselves that we come to value things? The scale of values Aristotle sketches has the exterior goods at the bottom and the goods pertaining to the soul as the most extreme ones, even inestimable. How do we get access to ourselves and to others? What do we mean when we think of someone as being useless or incapable? What does it take for us to define a great man?

Bibliography

  1. Bywater, I. 1894. Aristotelis ethica Nicomachea. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ross,W.D.1924.Aristotle’smetaphysics,2vols.Oxford:Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Susemihl, F. 1884. Aristotelis ethica Eudemia. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Others

  1. Carvalho, Mário Jorge. 2009. Mário Jorge de Carvalho: Die Aristophanesrede in Platons Symposium. Würzburg: Die Verfassung des Selbst, Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  2. Caston, V. 1998. Aristotle and the problem of intentionality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research58(2): 249–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapura, M. 2009. Scale, causality, complexity and emergence: Rethinking scale’s ontological significance. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers34(4): 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coby, P. 1986. Aristotle’s four conceptions of politics. The Western Political Quarterly39(3): 480–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, S.D. 2004. Moral virtue and the limits of the political community in Aristotle’s “Nicomachean ethics”. American Journal of Political Science48(1): 47–61.Google Scholar
  6. Cua, A.S. 2003. The ethical significance of shame: Insights of Aristotle and Xunzi. Philosophy East and West53(2): 147–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dickie, W.M. 1923. Anticipations in Aristotle of the four experimental methods. Philosophical Review32(4): 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fortenbaugh, W.W. 1964. Aristotle’s conception of moral virtue and its perceptive role. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association95: 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garver, E. 1982. The meaning of ΘΡΑΣΟΣ in Aristotle’s ethics. Classical Philology77(3): 228–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon, B.J. 1964. Aristotle and the development of value theory. Quarterly Journal of Economics78(1): 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halloran, S.M. 1982. Aristotle’s concept of ethos, or if not his somebody else’s. Rhetoric Review1(1): 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heath, M. 1988. Aristotle’s poetics. The Classical Review38(2): 231–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kreager, P. 2008. Aristotle and open population thinking. Population and Development Review34(4): 599–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mara, G.M. 2000. The logos of the wise in the politeia of the many: Recent books on Aristotle’s political philosophy. Political Theory28(6): 835–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mulgan, R. 1990. Aristotle and the value of political participation. Political Theory18(2): 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Turner, M. 1970. The heroic ideal in Sidney’s revised arcadia. Studies in English Literature10(1): 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ward, L., and Aristotle. 2001. Nobility and necessity: The problem of courage in Aristotle’s “Nicomachean ethics”. The American Political Science Review95(1): 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Waters, D.D. 1969. Prince Arthur as Christian magnanimity in book one of the Faerie Queene. Studies in English Literature9(1): 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Woodson, T. 1970. Thoreau on poverty and magnanimity. PMLA85(1): 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department of the Faculty of Social Sciences and HumanitiesNew University of Lisbon, FCSH/Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations