Analiza i Egzystencja

ISSN: 1734-9923     eISSN: 2300-7621    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/aie.2017.38-04
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  ERIH PLUS  DOAJ

Lista wydań / 38 (2017)
O sprawcy działania i odpowiedzialnym działaniu u Arystotelesa

Autorzy: Maciej Smolak
Instytut Filozofii UJ
Słowa kluczowe: decision fine man of the highest order responsibility virtue of character
Rok wydania:2017
Liczba stron:22 (67-88)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstrakt

At EN III.1 1109b31-32 Aristotle says we praise and censure voluntary actions and we feel sympathy for involuntary actions, and sometimes even pity. Next he examines which actions are voluntary and involuntary. This examination is connected with determination of the conditions under which the person is auctor agendi and thus can respond for the action. But it is not right to say, when somebody is auctor agendi his action is responsible. Hence, to answer to the question which action is responsible action in Aristotle, the author considers the issue in two stages. The first stage is devoted to clarification what does it mean to be the agent of action. The second stage gives the explanation of what does it mean “to decide for the action accordance with virtue because of it”. As the result, the author demonstrates that the responsible action is taken on the basis of decision and for the sake of fine. He shows such action is fine because: a) the realized end is fine; b) it is choiceworthy in itself; c) the motive of the agent is the fine.
Pobierz plik

Plik artykułu

Bibliografia

1.Aristote (1958). L’ Éthique à Nicomaque. T. I: Introduction et Traduction par
2.R.A. Gauthier et J.Y. Jolif. Louvain: Publications Universitaires.
3.Aristote (1959). L’ Éthique à Nicomaque. T. II: Commentaire par R.A. Gauthier
4.et J.Y. Jolif J.Y., partie 1. Louvain: Publications Universitaires.
5.Aristoteles (1960). Aristotelis Opera ex recognition I. Bekkeri, edition altera quam
6.curavit O. Gigon. Berolini.
7.Aristotle (1985). The Nicomachean Ethics. Transl. with Commentaries and Glossary
8.by T. Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
9.Arnold, D.G. (2001). Coercion and Moral Responsibility. American Philosophical
10.Quarterly, 38, 53–67.
11.Bondeson, W. (1974). Aristotle on Responsibility for One’s Character and the Possibility
12.of Character Change. Phronesis, 19, 59–65.
13.Bostock, D. (2000). Aristotle’s Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.Cooper, J.M.C. (1999). Reason and Emotion: Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology
15.and Ethical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16.Galewicz, W. (2003). Z Arystotelesem przez greckie tragedie. Cz. 2: O błądzeniu,
17.przymusie i dobrowolności. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
18.Hursthouse, R. (1984). Acting and Feeling in Character: Nicomachean Ethics 3.i.
19.Phronesis, 29.
20.Irwin, T.H. (1980). Reason and Responsibility in Aristotle. W: A.O. Rorthy (red.),
21.Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics (s. 117–155). Berkeley–Los Angeles: University
22.of California Press.
23.Irwin, T.H. (1996). Ethics in the ‘Rhetoric’ and in the ‘Ethics’. W: A.O. Rorthy
24.(red.), Essays on Aristotle’s ‘Rhetoric’ (s. 142–174). Berkeley–Los Angeles:
25.University of California Press.
26.Korsgaard, Ch.M. (1996). From Duty and for the Sake of the Noble: Kant and Aristotle
27.on Morally Good Action. W: S. Engstrom, J. Whiting (red.), Aristotle,
28.Kant, and the Stoics. Rethinking Happiness and Duty (s. 203–236). New York:
29.Cambridge University Press.
30.Moline, J.N. (1989). Aristotle on Praise and Blame. Archiv für Geschichte der
31.Philosophie, 71 (3), 283–302.
32.Meyer, S.S. (2006). Aristotle on the Voluntary. W: R. Kraut (red.), The Blackwell
33.Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (s. 137–157). Oxford: Blackwell
34.Publishing.
35.Pańpuch, Z. (2015). Szczęście a polityka. Aretologiczne podstawy politologii Platona
36.i Arystotelesa. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
37.Price, A.W. (1989). Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford
38.University Press. Ricoeur, P. (1990). Soi-même comme un autre. Paris: Editions
39.du Seuil.
40.Smolak, M. (2013). Przyjaźń w świetle etyki Arystotelesa. Kraków: Wydawnictwo
41.Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
42.Smolak, M., Łacina, K. (2015). Argument z funkcji – Etyka nikomachejska, 1.7,
43.1097b22-1098a17. W: K. Bałękowski, K. Maciąg (red.), Filozoficzne rozważania
44.o człowieku, wolności i wartościach, Lublin: Fundacja na rzecz promocji
45.nauki i rozwoju TYGIEL.
46.Wesoły, M. (2012). Dusza żywienna (wegetatywna) zwierząt w koncepcji Arystotelesa.
47.W: K. Ilski (red.), Człowiek w świecie zwierząt – zwierzęta w świecie
48.człowieka (s. 87–106). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
49.Whiting, J. (2002). Eudaimonia, External Results, and Choosing Virtuous Actions
50.for Themselves. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 270–290.