Through the importance placed on moral education, virtue ethics remains a moral theory still prevalent in modern day discussions of ethics. Whilst faced with many dilemmas, it seems possible that that we all have the ability to reach the levels of reasoning phronesis requires, leading to eudaimonia. Whilst virtue ethics places much importance on characters, an individual's practice of virtues does not take place in a vacuum, but in response to the requirements of highly concrete practical situations. Understanding actions of virtue in this way enables individuals with the potential to escape bad character if it requires it: if the individual understands why she is acting virtuously, there is always potentiality to change ones character, that is not to say it is impossible. Similarly, the importance placed on moral education does not necessarily or explicitly refer to education within a family domain.

Through socialisation, by being disposed to other people's actions, we are capable of grasping what is right and what is wrong. We learn to understand virtues from almost any social environment; therefore Aristotle is capable of escaping problems arising from individuals with unfortunate upbringings. It is true such agents may exhibit bad character from being trained wrongly, however, by being disposed to further alternate, more virtuous actions of the others around them, they can reassess their understanding of what is right and wrong, rewriting their general knowledge which they derive from the specific examples of virtues witnessed.

Life of contemplation as a choice-worthy life, decision based arete, cannot be learned by reading or being taught in a classroom but requires steady practice first and theoretical study second; it can be taught therefore, but only after practice. Thinking of happiness as something capable of being taught from the offset is to conceive of the good life imperfectly; virtue is to behave in the right manner. With this in mind, we understand phronesis is concerned with particulars, focussing on how to act in specific situations. We can learn all we like in classrooms or through others, however it is only when we apply our action in the real world that we experience a working towards phronesis. We cannot foresee situations before they happen, as a result we learn from the situation we are forced into. At first, Aristotle notes it is likely we will all be liable to missing our target, however, through experience of varying circumstances, our aim gets more precise until we are able to always successfully reach our target, exemplifying practical reasoning.

This concentration on particulars plays an important part of questioning whether everyone can become phronetic and in turn, reach eudaimonia. We can only attain eudaimonia through conscious activity itself, with the realisation that eudaimonia is the good at which all other goods aim. Considering particulars further, Aristotle recognises the part fortune plays in our attainment of eudaimonia. Through our discussion of moral education we know individuals do require an element of good fortune in order  to obtain eudaimonia, as it is a constant activity and if it were to be hindered by misfortune the agent would deter from his attempts at achieving it. With this in mind, whilst Aristotle notes that eudaimonia requires sufficient good fortune, he does not recognise specifically what he means by fortune. Is it possible to create ones own fortune; through recognition of ones own well being?

Understanding fortune in this sense gives us a broader comprehension of those who can be deemed fortunate. For example, we may take for the final time, our example of the evil man. He determines his fate by his choice worthy action. There still remains potential for anyone to deter from what is to be regarded as their original character. Potentiality to realise ability to fulfil one's function as working towards the ultimate happiness is central to this understanding of fortune.

With more room for growth and the ability for the individual to branch off, discovering oneself through education and experience becomes possible. For the evil man or akratic man, both when faced with a situation, reason as if they're fighting with their emotions and immediate pleasures. Such conflict can be overcome, if one allies such feelings to reason. To lose sight of the distorting influence of pleasure, emotion and feeling is the starting point for acquiring a good reasoning faculty. Subsequently, considering potentiality and flexibility of character, whilst no easy task, I believe it to be possible for any individual to be able to lead a life of phronetic behaviour, leading to an attainment of Aristotle's final end of Eudaimonia.



References
Ackrill, John: Aristotle on Eudaimonia, in Essays in Aristotle's Ethics, Edited by Amelie Rorty, (University California Press, Los Angeles, California), 1980
Broadie, Sarah: Ethics with Aristotle, (Oxford University Press, Oxford), 1991
Cooper, John: Reason and Human Good in Aristotle, (Hackett Publishing Company, Indiana), 1986
Nussbaum, Martha: The Fragility of Goodness, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 1986
Sherman, Nancy: The Habituation of Character in Aristotle's Ethics: Critical Essays, Edited by Nancy Sherman, (Bowman and Littlefield Publishing, Maryland, United States) 1999

Questions of moral education are prevalent as ever in modern society. To what extent can we argue there exists any definitive modern morality? We take less time to focus on morality as being taught , the way the greeks did, however is this to say we are any less aware of what is right and wrong?

The purpose of moral education is to render the irrational part of the soul amenable to autonomous rational prescription. Through acting, the non-rational part of the soul becomes receptive to reason, it listens and forms rational judgements in order to conform to the prescribed, desired action. Like we have seen through our phronesis, if I want to be more generous, it follows that I should be more giving and less selfish in my actions to attain the virtue of generosity. Such receptiveness highlights a communication between the irrational part of the soul and reason. Expressing an understanding of what is to be done and a readiness to abandon immediate pleasures in order to execute rationally arrived at by action. The non-rational part of the soul must also become reflective. Instead of being absorbed by its impulses and desires, as the akratic man is prone to, it must curb them through self discipline and reflect on decisions. One must not act through impulse but consider a practical line of action in light of his soul being receptive to reason. Such a process distinguishes the link between reason and action. To achieve an excellent character we require emotions, feeling and motives, doing the right action alone is not sufficient for moral character, we must show a contemplative structuring in our choices, leading to a forming of moral character which is dependent on each individual.

To asses whether we are all capable of practical reasoning, it seems necessary to consider agents from an early age in order to contemplate the importance of moral education. Moral training is not focussed on teaching like those who teach through words and explanations, but instead is valued through the process of habit, accepted ways of behaviour and the persistence of displaying morally virtuous habits. Whilst not naturally endowed with these habits, they are not solely the results of social interaction. Broadie notes, they should be seen as moral qualities an agent acquired through upbringing and sustains by his own practice. However, to become an agent exhibiting ethical substance we must have a sense of potentiality. Are we born with this potentiality? Do we asses our potential through upbringing? For example, the girl fed on a silver spoon has more potential from birth than the boy who unfortunately suffered beatings and abuse from a young age? Such questions beg for answers, but assessing potentiality leaves us, to some extent, in murky waters. In order to distinguish what is right we must be disposed to rightness, for example we must be disposed to just acts in order to act in a just way, act in temperance only when we have been exposed to temperate acts and so on. Potential then, is formed from being disposed to moral activities  and it is only then when we have the potential to form moral dispositions. By being disposed to moral activity we can begin to try our own hand at acting.

Through this reasoning, Aristotle makes clear that until one knows what virtue is, one cannot know how it is to be acquired. It is through being disposed to acts that we area capable of constructing our own understanding of virtuous behaviour. However, if one is not disposed to such behaviour through upbringing and being taught what is right and wrong, are we exempt from reaching phronesis? Burnyeat considers Aristotle to place great importance on our primitive materials which characters are derived from, these being the starting point which we a brought up in, recognising from a young age what justice is through learning in a 'it-is-that' sense from the conduct of others around us. For example, if I see my mother acting in a just way, like giving to those less fortunate, I can make note, my mother mentioned this is a good action, from this I will see further similar actions being performed, recognising a link between them, I become familiar with what it means to act in accordance with justice, From a sense of familiarity of specific actions the individual, with a good upbringing disposed to such actions is capable of internalising, through comparison and correlation, what are noble and fine actions.

Such guided conduct involves both being told what is noble, seeing and acknowledging what is good through action and finally, discovering that what you have been told is fine and true through ones own judgement. Discovering in this sense is to learn, not like instruction, for example to learn that 2 + 2 = 4, but to discover the reasons why certain actions are fine and good. For example, I learn that it is just to share my things with others. You must understand why the action is good, and good in itself, in order to meet to standards of reasoning phronesis requires; it is not enough to merely follow the instruction of sharing if you are doing so just because a parent has told you to. To find the reasons why you are performing such actions, to interpret it as doing good for its own sake, to make your friends happy, to realise by sharing you are all benefitting instead of just one person, is to recognise the 'because' of your action. Understanding why you have made a choice of action is an integral part of practical reasoning the individual becomes aware it is much more than just a response, but an internally recognised decision founded upon deliberation.

However, Aristotle notes it is only someone with a good upbringing who can benefit from a character well bred, as a true lover of what is noble, ready to be possessed by virtue, they are not able to encourage the many to nobility and goodness. Recognising moral education in this way it seems that when considering virtues, Aristotle is reluctant to allow just anyone the potential of reaching a state of practical reasoning. Touching upon fear and shame, Aristotle identifies that being disposed to nobility necessarily gives individuals a greater chance at achieving eudaimonia, for by tasting the pleasures of what is noble from a young age they understand bad acts are avoided because of shame and not fear. One mast have been disposed and educated morally to act not merely with appropriate action, but to truly understand why one acts; it is not enough to fear punishment, but as mentioned, individuals go wrong in their choices, who have been educate morally, feel shame after acting; they are aware their decision was not in accordance with virtuous behaviour and it is such an experience of shame that deters them from acting against their better judgement in future. Burnyeat makes clear Aristotle allows for failings of reason like this in individuals of young age, this is because they are still learning what is virtuous and what right decision entails, each mistake is motivating them to further their evaluative responses to situations at hand and through such a reflective scheme they are more likely to arrive at objects of nobility. However, what can be said for the man who continues to make mistakes of reason throughout adulthood? Aristotle notes that this is a likely possibility, for most peoples desires are already so corrupted, that no amount of argument will bring them to see that some things are desirable for their own sakes, leaving us doubtful as to whether we are all capable of arriving at phronesis and subsequently eudaimonia.

Stressing the educational process further, Sherman makes note that passion seems to yield not to argument, but to force, which is why those who cannot constrain their appetitive desires have underdeveloped reasoning faculties and become incapable of responding appropriately. To yield to argument requires a guiding hand, for the individual to appreciate at a young age, not the passions but the things which are good in themselves. Again, we see the importance of education and upbringing emerging, causing problems concerning those who have not had fortunate childhoods. The child, in a sense, borrows the eyes of wisdom and listens to the words of elders and the more experienced. By being disposed to different situations and perceiving what is right from such dispositions, the child sees correlations in particular circumstances, realising what is appropriate and not appropriate from watching others perform actions.

Through forming an understanding of action to circumstance in their 'this-is-that' sense, the individual from a young age can consider the particular incidents to form a general understanding of what is right and noble and what actions are wrong and should be avoided. For example, someone may accidentally stand on your foot, in which case the agent would realise the correct response would be maybe to wince in pain, but not feel anger or contempt. On the other hand, if someone went out of their way to deliberately stand on your foot, to cause pain, feeling anger would be more appropriate; naturally, someone has slighted you and purposefully gone out of their way to hurt you. Your emotional response would be justified in this way in the second example, but not the first. As a result, the individual's forming of appropriate action to circumstance arises out of the parental guidance elicited from childhood. The child mimics the action of the parent but with the additional clause of judging for oneself and feeling the appropriate emotions about what he or she chooses. Ideal action is the goal, however it is unlikely this will be achieved in the first, second or even third try; but the successive attempts and refinement of action that help us get closer to successfully arriving at the right action, as well as realising our mistakes along the way, adding to the virtue learning process. Without this training, mimicking of action displayed by those who help us learn, Aristotle seems skeptical that those with an unfortunately upbringing are capable of phronesis.

Difficulties of learning requires that the process be sweetened in various ways, with the cultivation of virtue focussed on getting better, something the individual is not born with, but arrives at through coming-to-be. Being brought up in the right ways allows agents to find enjoyment in the right things from an early age. With this in mind however, although Aristotle places great importance on moral education and upbringing, this is not to say that those who have not been brought up in such a manner are forever wretched and cannot attain phronesis. We are in agreement that the special affection children have for the family makes a privilege and effective environment for ethical learning. Yet, that is not to say that is the only environment which an individual can learn virtuous behaviour. Examples are few and far between, but are a possibility. Aristotle notes, as we have mentioned, that a changing of who we are is exceedingly difficult, but that is not to mean it is an impossibility. We cannot change our past, but we do have the potential to change our character. Although difficult, there is room for manoeuvre. Friends, work colleagues, teachers, are all capable of disposing us to a sense of what-is-rightness, through this social interaction it becomes clear that whilst a poor upbringing can infringe upon an individuals ability to achieve phronesis, there are other factors which contribute to our mimicking of action, our own judgements and subsequently our responses.



Next week we shall finalise our investigation into eudaimonia and individual's ability to attain phronetic reasoning. Taking our arguments against the egoistic problem, difficulties determining what is to be deemed voluntary and involuntary action and whether there is any scope for those with very little moral education to discover what is noble, we shall conclude whether we are to be as skeptical as Aristotle is, or if there is more potential for reaching eudaimonia than originally thought. 


References 

Broadie, Sarah: Ethics with Aristotle, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999)
Burnyeat, M: Aristotle on Learning to be Good, in Ethics with Aristotle, (University of California Press, London, England, 19980)
Crisp, Roger: Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, (Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 2000)
Nussbaum, Martha: The Fragility of Goodness, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986)
Sherman, Nancy: The Habituation of Character in Aristotle's Ethics by Nancy Sherman, (Bowman and Littlefield Publishing, Maryland, United States, 1999)

Considering my last post I beg to question whether we can really render the evil individual as voluntary? Aristotle in chapter 8 of the Nicomachean Ethics considers actions done involuntarily.  He explains the man who acts involuntarily, who doesn't act in accordance with justice or injustice but incidentally, is participating in non voluntary action and 'non-voluntary' should be used as a term coined 'for all actions done under ignorance'. Despite this, Aristotle believes we should still consider evil as that of choice and voluntary.

Initially, the actions which formed his evil dispositions were performed through the corresponding character, over time they have become almost second nature. The agent once had the potential to do otherwise, to choose his own action, through choice. Two main things render actions involuntary, these are force and ignorance. Force is concerned with both psychological pressures and physical forces. Acting out of psychological pressure may be to act out of threat of pain or punishment; for example, if Bob does not own up he will be tortured. Alternatively, an example of physical force may be, if Bob's bus stops to a halt, he accidentally spills coffee on the passenger next to him; the spilling is involuntary, caused by the force of the bus driver braking. Being forced to act is concerned with pressure, in this way, we naturally do not associate it with what is good or pleasant, but rather, when we act involuntarily in this way we experience both regret and pain. Considering regret and pain, we must not confuse involuntary forced action with actions which we do, yet don't want to do. Giving up your seat on the tube so someone else can sit down is voluntary. Why? This is an action we do to secure a good end, we value it as a right action to choose. Such an action is praised, it is the praise associated with the action which highlights its status as voluntary; as actions which are involuntary often do not have praise and blame attached to them. It is therefore the moment of action and the circumstances an agent is in we are concerned with in cases of voluntary versus non-voluntary status and not whether an action is genuinely desirable.

Following this, the second element of involuntary action is ignorance. Acting from ignorance is again, a matter of the individuals circumstances. To act from ignorance is not to know the consequences, or in what manner you are acting. However, you are aware of the general truths at hand, and what you are aiming for in respect of your desired end. For example, you may want to make your friend happy after her breakup with her boyfriend. Your desired end is to make her feel better, however you might think you are helping her by talking to her, trying to console her, encouraging her to get back on the dating scene, when in actual fact you may be annoying or even hindering her more as she would prefer to be at home, alone and crying at Bridget Jones. Your action becomes involuntary as your ignorance of her wishes and the manner in which you are acting is not actually favourable to the end in which you are aiming for. Therefore those who act from ignorance are not fully aware of the way in which their actions are performed towards specific consequences, they are acting willingly however the action in question does not suffice the ends they attempt to meet.

Voluntary action, in contrast, is action brought about with the knowledge of what you are doing. Whilst some say actions from passion are not voluntary, I think this is mistaken. If it were true that acting through emotion or passion was not voluntary, both children and animals would cease to be voluntary. Furthermore, there are many good actions which arise from passion and emotion, which we ought to do, to render them not voluntary would seem unfair. My desires and emotions should not be seen as less a part of me than mere reason. Acting on them is natural, something which we often do and should have just as much importance placed on them. To be a voluntary agent is to be one who is knowledgable of where his action arises from, to be answerable to ones own choices and deliberations. Considering choice, we must consider the difference between what is voluntary and what we choose. All that we choose to do is voluntary, but it is not the case that everything voluntary is chosen. For example, my three year old niece Amelia acts voluntarily, but her action is not chosen in the sense we understand choice. So then how are we to define choice? Aristotle values choice not necessarily as someone who goes against their desire, resisting temptation, nor is it wishing, but instead, a practical decision of means to arrive at a specific end.

Choice is distinguished as deliberation, concerned with things we can change (unlike facts like the eiffel tower is 300 metres tall), deliberation is, as we noted through our evaluation of phronesis, a reasoned thought process concerned with intuition and action, applied differently dependent on different occasions. It is true, as Aristotle notes, that we deliberate only about the means and not about specific ends. At first this seems difficult to accept, for example I may study hard, for the end of getting a good grade. However my choice to study is party of a much wider thought process than the immediate grading of an essay, it associates itself with my desired final end. My good grades would be part of the greater end of wishing to be a well educated individual, to learn more, to teach others what I have learnt, to display flourishing and work towards a good life. Through deliberation we understand choice, as things which are knowingly in ones power.

Returning to our example of the evil man we can now consider whether people do bad things voluntarily as well as by choice. Prior to Aristotle, Socrates argued everyone aims at what they consider good, anything bad which is done is done through ignorance of what truly good action is and therefore cannot be voluntary. Aristotle agreed to some extent, that bad people are ignorant of what is good, however their action is still voluntary. Choosing a right act requires understanding the reason why it is right. The bad or evil man may be aware that an action should not be done, however if he cannot realise why, he does not know what he is ought to do. Speaking of proper goods, Aristotle notes we must aim at what is truly desirable to arrive at eudaimonia, what a good person desires, but not what the akratic man or ignorant man would desire. Pleasure infringes on the understanding of good and leads to pursing the bad as it is assumed to be most desirable and pleasant.

It is true that different characters find pleasures in different things, however this is not a scapegoat for allowing involuntary actions of the wretched. Aristotle notes this is because (as already mentioned), choice relates to what is in our power to do. We choose whether we do good or bad actions; therefore evil people choose bad actions voluntarily. Bad actions are discouraged at the same time as encouragement of acting within our power, like choosing and judging. Therefore, bad actions must be done voluntarily. But are the bad still morally responsible? They may truly believe they are choosing what they think is good, unaware of what is desirable for its own sake, acting from ignorance. Aristotle accepts this is the process which they do arrive at their decisions by, but are nevertheless, still responsible for their actions. Bad people are bad as a result of bad choices, they become bad on their own accord through constant bad actions they become more and more ignorant of goodness. Forming ones character is acquired through acting in a corresponding way. We choose how to act and such choices in turn, result in making us good or bad agents.

Actions and character traits, it is important we note, are not values and subsequently are also not voluntary in the same way. Voluntary actions are under our control from beginning to end, we make a choice and act upon it. Traits of character like those we explored in the last post however, are developed at the beginning, by choosing action, we create traits of character, therefore our gradual accumulation of actions of choice lead us to become a certain sort of person, once we become such a person we cannot simply choose to be any different. Therefore, it is through the separation of the two that we can arrive at understanding how the evil individuals actions are done voluntarily, and what once was a flexible character, has now become fixed through a constant state of bad decision making. It is through such reasoning that the individual can be considered voluntary, with a flexible character, and still be answerable to his own actions.

However this still leaves us with many questions. When is an individual entrenched in evilness and when does the wrongdoing become so much a part of his nature that evilness is inseparable from his character? Is there a turning point in the process where we identify what is good and that which is evil? A line which once crossed, leaves no room for escapism? I am prone to think this all seems unlikely, but then again, I am often prone to rose-tinting and romanticising the image of human nature.




My next post will consider moral education as a solution to all that is non-rational, evil, akratic and weak-willed. Addressing whether there really is any scope for millennial's to truly be morally educated, or whether the entire concept is anachronistic in nature and can solve very little in modern society. 

Due to its value as seeking of the greatest happiness, Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia has been under attack by some who regard it in its very definition, egoistic. Supporters of such a stance believe advocates of eudaimonia are either illegitimately helping themselves to Aristotle's discredited natural theology or producing mere rationalisations of their own personal or culturally inculcated values. The question posed is whether Aristotle's concept of happiness understood as everyone pursuing their own happiness eventually ends up in what Irwin best identifies as 'useless triviality, saying that people desire most whatever they desire most'. Are we on the right track by comprehending eudaimonia this way? I am dubious.

To believe ultimate happiness revolves around desires is to remove all morality from the very moral concept it is identified as. Eudaimonia is concerned with flourishing in addition to happiness and most importantly, motives for happiness themselves constitute towards our telos of final, ultimate happiness. Advocating the idea that humans are by nature social animals, Aristotle understands that both the psychology and evolution of humans show how dependent on each other we are. We choose to live together, work together and engage with one another. We could live as hermits, secluding ourselves to achieve these egoistic aims, however, we give them up. We volunteer ourselves to cooperation in a society. Our necessitating of a society does not mean we rely on natural impulses solely directed towards our own independent desires, but acknowledging action in respect of the society and communities we are a part of, action arises from altruism and recognition. To argue that a virtuous agent would act on the basis of doing something just because she wants to, is to be confused about the concept of eudaimonia. The individual does not act through selfishness, instead she acts because she thinks her action will result in the best outcome of a situation, such as someones suffering being avoided, someone benefitting from a  situation where they otherwise would not have, were her action to be different to the one she performed. The virtuous individual concentrates on these reasons for acting, not because she believes acting in a specific way will get her closer to eudaimonia, but through striving for happiness as flourishing, thus leaving all arguments concerning egocentric aims redundant.

Central to the our proper idea of eudaimonia is our ability to reason well. Those we can reason well are exhibiting their ability to make rationalised practical decisions, eventually leading to skilful phronetic behaviour, choice and action. Necessary in our understanding of eudaimonia is an inner consideration of what is right. To act because it is what we want is not enough to justify our actions, we need reason which must be good in itself. For an agent to do what they want is to act from impulse, passion and desire, like the akratic individuals discussed, they do not take time to deliberate and consider their reasoning faculties. Subsequently, they prevent the full development in themselves of certain desires, which would allow them to grow and realise their telos. To exercise ones virtues, eudaimonia is naturally to be partially constitutive when making decisions and acting, however this is not to mean that it is all the individual is geared towards; he must judge for himself the best course of action, not only for the fundamental aim of flourishing, but to truly value the actions which lead to him arriving at it. A life successfully lived, one of contemplation requires individuals to act altruistically not in a means to end self-centred way, but through an evaluative process of reasoning.

The egocentric individual is aware of his minor premise however they cannot make the connections to the further major premise. For example consider I have a friend named Ken who gets talking with an attractive lady at his bus stop, after talking for a few minutes he discovers she is married, but also, flirting with him. He knows adultery is wrong, but at the same time believes she is attracted to him. The man who can identify the minor premise of action then and there in accordance with his major premise of eudaimonia and the good life, recognises it is in his best interests to end the conversation, walk away, act in a way which would not tread on the toes of the man married to the flirtatious bus-waiting lady. However, the akratic man cannot make this connection, instead he may catch the same bus to spend extra time getting to know her, his passions leading him down the possible path of contributing to the woman's act of adultery. As a result, it is only those who are unaware of the highest, overarching premise and it's contribution to action central to eudaimonia, who can be deemed egoistic.

Acting with only the minor premise, in a manner with focusses on action as usefulness to ones own aims, is egocentric. Individuals who do so do not asses whether their action leads to the greatest goodness, happiness. They are only committed to what satisfies their immediate needs, not aware of their self-sufficency acting with so much passion they infringe upon their own ability to reach the highest good, hindering themselves and their own ability to reach phronesis. The difference then, between the agent displaying virtuous behaviour and the akratic individual is that the former acts a result of what he believes he should do, whereas the individual who is akratic in his decisions merely acts because it is what he desires and is pleasured by. Those who display virtue act in this way even if it means the situation is not favourable for them. For example they give to charity even if it means they cannot spend the money on a drink with friends at the bar, this is because they are aware the same amount would mean more to the charity than it would were it to be wasted away at the bar. This sense of other-regarding as opposed to self-regarding is central to our understanding of eudaimonia, the benevolence and justice inherent in such actions make them anything but egocentric. As a result, it seems that to render the process of eudaimonia as egocentric is to misunderstand eudaimonia and its requirements; the virtuous individual is not egocentric but altruistic, other regarding and takes great time in reasoning well so that their actions are justified and virtuous in their own right.



But what about if an individual is intrinsically prone to more egocentric action than most agents? Is this a possibility, is there room for change in ones nature? Next time we shall investigate as to whether character is to be valued as fixed or flexible.



References

Cooper, John: Reason and Human Good in Aristotle, (Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1986)
Crisp, Roger: Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)
Irwin, Terence: The Metaphysical and Psychological Basis of Aristotle's Ethics in Essays on Aristotle's Ethics, Edited by Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, (University Press California, London, 1980)
Mele, Alfred: Aristotle on Akrasia, Eudaimonia and the Psychological Action of Aristotle's Ethics, Edited by Nancy Sherman, (Bowman and Littlefield Publishers, Maryland, United States, 1999)
Nussbaum, Martha: The Fragility of Goodness (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986)
Ross, David: The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013)
Williams, Bernard: Justice as Virtue, in Moral Luck (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981)