Javier Echenique

Aristotle recognises preternatural affections in numerous passages from his ethical writings, where he claims that some desires and emotions are beyond human nature, too strong for our nature to withstand, and that an action motivated by them is συγγνωμονικὸν: something excusable. However, there has been some reluctance among scholars to explicitly acknowledge that Aristotle recognised preternatural affections as a category of excuse in its own right. The aim of this paper is to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of such a recognition, and to show that Aristotle developed a normative account of preternatural affections, based on the natural human capacity to withstand, allowing him to class them as genuine cases of βία, compulsion.

In this article I argue for the thesis that Alexander's main argument, in Ethical Problems I, is an attempt to block the implication drawn by the Stoics and other ancient philosophers from the double potential of use exhibited by human life, a life that can be either well or badly lived. Alexander wants to resist the thought that this double potential of use allows the Stoics to infer that human life, in itself, or by its own nature, is neither good nor bad (what I call the Indifference Implication). Furthermore, I shall argue that Alexander's main argument establishes that human life, despite exhibiting a double potential of use, is by its own nature or intrinsically good. Finally, given that this is not a conclusion that the Stoics are likely to accept, I shall also contend that the argument should be regarded as conducted for the most part in foro interno, as a way of persuading the Peripatetics themselves of the falsity of the Indifference Implication, precisely because of the risk that such an implication be derived from their own theoretical framework.

Aquí propongo mostrar, en contra de las interpretaciones dominantes, que el origen de la Ética como disciplina filosófica se encuentra en lo que llamo ‘el problema de la dikaiosunê’, la ‘rectitud moral’. El reconocimiento en el siglo V. a. C. de la dikaiosunê como una virtud moral central a la vida humana entra en conflicto con el marco eudaimonista admitido por varios intelectuales del siglo V, debido a que la dikaiosunê es una fuente de requerimientos normativos independiente del interés propio (de la eudaimonía propia). Ante este conflicto, se perfilan solamente dos alternativas de resolución: la solución de los inmoralistas, que le niega a la dikaiosunê el estatus de virtud moral, y la de los moralistas, que admite dicho estatus e intenta integrar a dicha virtud al marco eudaimonista. La ética de Platón, considerado comúnmente como el padre de la Ética, es solo una pieza de este rompecabezas.

Abstract : This article examines whether moral theory can provide satisfactory guidance to agents facing (resolvable) moral conflicts where mutually exclusive actions are required by significant moral reasons. Employing an exploratory approach, we map the alternatives offered by value-based moral theories, focusing on monism, which grounds moral reasons in a single value like utility, and hierarchical pluralism, which assigns a fixed ranking to multiple intrinsic values. Non-hierarchical pluralism is dismissed as it fails to offer practical guidance beyond subjective prioritisation. We propose two criteria for evaluating these theories: scope of resolution (the range of conflicts a theory can address) and explanatory capacity (the ability to account for ordinary moral experiences regarding moral conflicts, such as moral residue). Monism is criticised for its inability to explain the persistence of moral reasons not acted upon, while hierarchical pluralism faces a dilemma: it is either too narrow in scope or unable to accommodate circumstantial variations in the relative importance of values. Our findings suggest that moral theory’s practical role in resolving moral conflicts is inherently limited. Instead, resolving most moral conflicts requires practical wisdom, as theorised in the Aristotelian tradition, which acknowledges the complexity and context-dependence of moral reasoning.

The purpose of this article is to offer a reconstruction of the moral theory defended by Callicles in Plato’s Gorgias, aided by other contemporary texts that contribute to explain and refine such a theory. The first step of this reconstruction is to show that Callicles offers a perspectivist theory of moral judgements, according to which moral judgements can be issued from two radically distinct perspectives, the contractual and the natural one. The second step is to show that Callicles makes use of a peculiar conception of nature that allows him to claim that certain natural rights and privileges stemming from the natural perspective of valuation must override those rights stemming from the contractual perspective. The resulting theory, as well as being worthy of philosophical interest, does not appear to be vulnerable to most of the objections advanced by the dominant interpretations, nor does it entail the implausible sort of hedonism that Plato attributes to Callicles in this dialogue.

Se argumenta que el inmoralismo que confronta Platón en República I y II, lejos de presentar un solo desafío, tiene en realidad cuatro niveles de exigencia progresiva. Esta estructura escalonada del desafío inmoralista pone de manifiesto el hecho de que el desafío oficial, formulado por Adamanto en República II, corresponde a una peculiar interpretación que Platón hace del inmoralismo. Esto se debe a que los dos primeros niveles del desafío no introducen la novedosa posibilidad de suplantación de la realidad moral por la reputación moral, característica de la interpretación platónica. Se argumenta también que la interpretación platónica acarrea ciertos problemas, y para los cuales se ofrecen soluciones tentativas. Entre estos problemas destaca la famosa objeción según la cual la noción de justicia como armonía síquica que Platón propone como respuesta, en República IV, parece cambiar de tema. Se argumenta, finalmente, que la estructura escalonada del desafío inmoralista permite hacer frente a esta objeción, pues sus últimos dos niveles ya determinan la forma que deberá tomar la respuesta ofrecida en República IV.

Aristotle recognises preternatural affections in numerous passages from his ethical writings, where he claims that some desires and emotions are beyond human nature, too strong for our nature to withstand, and that an action motivated by them is συγγνωμονικὸν: something excusable. However, there has been some reluctance among scholars to explicitly acknowledge that Aristotle recognised preternatural affections as a category of excuse in its own right. The aim of this paper is to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of such a recognition, and to show that Aristotle developed a normative account of preternatural affections, based on the natural human capacity to withstand, allowing him to class them as genuine cases of βία, compulsion.

In this article I argue for the thesis that Alexander's main argument, in Ethical Problems I, is an attempt to block the implication drawn by the Stoics and other ancient philosophers from the double potential of use exhibited by human life, a life that can be either well or badly lived. Alexander wants to resist the thought that this double potential of use allows the Stoics to infer that human life, in itself, or by its own nature, is neither good nor bad. Furthermore, I shall argue that Alexander's main argument establishes that human life, despite exhibiting a double potential of use, is by its own nature or intrinsically good. Finally, given that this is not a conclusion that the Stoics are likely to accept, I shall also contend that the argument should be regarded as conducted for the most part in foro interno, as a way of persuading the Peripatetics themselves of the falsity of the Indifference Implication, precisely because of the risk that such an implication be derived from their own theoretical framework.

In this paper I critically examine the key normative claim of the so-called ‘new Natural Law ethics’, namely, the claim that being alive, in the biological sense of the word, has an intrinsically valuable standing. This claim is at the basis of the absolute condemnation of all acts aiming at destroying such a good. After explaining the meaning of this fundamental normative claim, I engage in a dialectical argument between the suicidal person and the new Natural Law ethicists in order to show that, despite the reluctance of new Natural Law ethicists to argue in favour of the intrinsically valuable standing of life, such argument is absolutely necessary. Finally, I critically examine the arguments that have been adduced to support it and reject them.

In Nicomachean Ethics II 4 Aristotle famously raises a puzzle concerning moral habituation, and he seems to dissolve it by recourse to the analogy between moral virtue and skills. A new interpretation of the chapter is offered on the basis of an important evaluative dissimilarity then noted by Aristotle, one almost universally disregarded by interpreters of the chapter. I elucidate the nature of the dissimilarity in question and argue for its paramount importance for understanding Aristotle’s conception of moral agency. I also show that it is the particularly intricate and puzzling character of the chapter that has prevented scholars from noticing such a dissimilarity and from integrating it to the interpretation of the chapter.

Resumen:Este artículo se propone mostrar, en contra de las interpretaciones dominantes, que Platón debió tempranamente postular la supervivencia del alma como un sujeto independiente de daño y beneficio moral con el objeto de completar su defensa de la ética socrática - en particular el principio de Soberanía de la Virtud, central en diálogos tempranos como la Apología, el Critón y el Gorgias. Al dualismo metafísico que resulta de este postulado le denomino ‘dualismo socrático’, para diferenciarlo del dualismo maduro expuesto por Platón en el Fedón.Palabras clave: alma; beneficio; cuerpo; daño; dualismo; ética; Sócrates; supervivencia; virtud.

In his Encomium of Helen, Gorgias provides us with a variety of arguments in order to show that Helen was not to be held accountable for having eloped with Paris. The main thesis advanced in this article is that these arguments, despite their apparent diversity, are given a unitary structure by the concept of force, and by the analogy that Gorgias estalishes between persuasion, the emotions, and sense-perception on the one hand, and this concept on the other. If this argument is successful, it shows that practically none of our actions are such that we are morally responsible for them. I discuss the cogency of this argument in connection with Aristotle’s objections to it.

Aristotle's Ethics develops a complex theory of the qualities which make for a good human being and for several decades there has been intense discussion about whether Aristotle's theory of voluntariness, outlined in the Ethics, actually delineates what modern thinkers would recognize as a theory of moral responsibility. Javier Echeñique presents a novel account of Aristotle's discussion of voluntariness in the Ethics, arguing - against the interpretation by Arthur Adkins and that inspired by Peter Strawson - that he developed an original and compelling theory of moral responsibility and that this theory has contributed in important ways to our understanding of coercion, ignorance and violence. His study will be valuable for a wide range of readers interested in Aristotle and in ancient ethics more broadly.

In this article I argue that the fundamental axiological claim of the New Natural Law Theory, according to which human life has an intrinsically valuable, cannot be defended within the framework assumed by the New Natural Law Theory itself, and further, that such a claim turns out to be false relative to a wider eudaimonistic framework that the Natural Law theorist is committed to accept. I do this this by adopting a dialectical standpoint which excludes any assumptions that could be denied by the New Natural Law theorist, except for the axiological claim, and show that the New Natural Law theorist cannot argue for the axiological claim's plausibility, and moreover, that in such a setting the New Natural Law theorist is compelled to replace the axiological claim by the claim that human life is instrumentally valuable. La afirmación axiológica fundamental de la Nueva Ley Natural según la cual la vida humana tiene un valor intrínseco, no puede ser defendida dentro del marco teórico asumido por dicha teoría, y resulta ser falsa en un marco eudemonista más amplio, que debe ser aceptado por el teórico de la ley natural. Se asume una posición dialéctica que excluye cualquier suposición que pueda ser negada por el teórico de la NLN, con excepción de la afirmación axiológica, y se demuestra que él no puede mostrar la plausibilidad de la afirmación axiológica; más aún, que se ve forzado a reemplazar la afirmación axiológica por la aceptación de que la vida humana tiene un valor instrumental.