Editor's IntroductionWhen Oxford University Press sent us the three enormous volumes of Irwin's The Development of Ethics, we had two thoughts: First, the book is very important and demands a review; second, since human sacrifice is abolished in North America, it will be very difficult to find a reviewer. We handed the volumes to several interested persons, who in the end returned the books saying the task was beyond them. Then, my wife, a lifetime worker at that center of (...) communal thought, the United Nations, suggested that we form a team to review the book. We put an announcement out on the Web, asking for reviewers to do a chapter each, at 250 words a review. We got several hundred volunteers, and chose 82 to review the 96 chapters of Irwin. We got 81 of 82 reviews, 75 before the deadline, six slightly later. For purposes of completeness, I filled in the sole missing review. Would that the students in my seminars were so punctual! I would like to thank Elyse Turr at Oxford University Press for the PDFs, and my 82 reviewers for their expertise and diligence. I am grateful to all the volunteers who showed an interest in this strange and perhaps unprecedented project, and who patiently endured the vetting process. Special thanks is due to Laura di Summa, who coordinated all the pieces of this incredible puzzle. Did we accomplish something, something new, by mobilizing 82 minds to review one book? I hope so, but I can now only say what they say on television: “America, it's up to you.”. (shrink)

The Gorgias is a vivid introduction to the central problems of moral and political philosophy. In the notes to his translation, Professor Irwin discusses the historical and social context of the dialogue, expounds and criticises the arguments, and tries above all to suggest the questions a modern reader ought to raise about Plato's doctrines. No knowledge of Greek is necessary.

Building on the strengths of the first edition, the second edition of the Irwin Nicomachean Ethics features a revised translation (with little editorial intervention), expanded notes (including a summary of the argument of each chapter), an expanded Introduction, and a revised glossary.

Terence Irwin presents a historical and critical study of the entire development of Western moral philosophy. The first volume covers ancient and medieval thought; the second the early modern period; the third goes from the late 18th to the late 20th century. Irwin offers illuminating discussion of every important thinker in the history of ethics.

Covering over 1000 years of classical philosophy from Homer to Saint Augustine, this accessible, comprehensive study details the major philosophies and philosophers of the period--the Pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Neoplatonism. Though the emphasis is on questions of philosophical interest, particularly ethics, the theory of knowledge, philosophy of mind, and philosophical theology, Irwin includes discussions of the literary and historical background to classical philosophy as well as the work of other important thinkers--Greek tragedians, historians, medical writers, and (...) early Christian writers. The most complete one-volume introduction to ancient philosophy available, the book will be an invaluable survey for students of philosophy and classics and general readers. (shrink)

This book traces the development of Plato's theory in its historical context, from the Socratic conception of virtue, knowledge and moral motivation to the revised Platonic conception, including the Theory of recollection, the Theory of forms, Platonic love, and the divisions of the soul.

The Aristotelian Corpus contains two extended treatments of justice as a virtue of character: Magna Moralia i 33 and Nicomachean Ethics Book V (or Eudemian Ethics Book IV). Differences between the two treatments include these: (1) MM denies, but EN V affirms, that natural justice is part of political justice; (2) MM denies, but EN V affirms, that general (or ‘universal’) justice is an other-directed virtue that should concern us in the treatment of justice as a virtue; (3) MM does (...) not discuss the relation between equity (epieikeia) and justice, while EN V affirms that equity and justice do not conflict. Are these differences connected? How are they to be explained? Might they help us to answer questions about (a) the relation of MM to the other two ethical treatises, and (b) the relation of EN V to the EE and to the EN? (shrink)

This exceptional book examines and explains Plato's answer to the normative question, "How ought we to live?" It discusses Plato's conception of the virtues; his views about the connection between the virtues and happiness; and the account of reason, desire, and motivation that underlies his arguments about the virtues. Plato's answer to the epistemological question, "How can we know how we ought to live?" is also discussed. His views on knowledge, belief, and inquiry, and his theory of Forms, are examined, (...) insofar as they are relevant to his ethical view. Terence Irwin traces the development of Plato's moral philosophy, from the Socratic dialogues to its fullest exposition in the Republic. Plato's Ethics discusses Plato's reasons for abandoning or modifying some aspects of Socratic ethics, and for believing that he preserves Socrates' essential insights. A brief and selective discussion of the Statesmen, Philebus, and Laws is included. Replacing Irwin's earlier Plato's Moral Theory (Oxford, 1977), this book gives a clearer and fuller account of the main questions and discusses some recent controversies in the interpretation of Plato's ethics. It does not presuppose any knowledge of Greek or any extensive knowledge of Plato. (shrink)

Exploring Aristotle's philosophical method and the merits of his conclusions, Irwin here shows how Aristotle defends dialectic against the objection that it cannot justify a metaphysical realist's claims. He focuses particularly on Aristotle's metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and ethics, stressing the connections between doctrines that are often discussed separately.

This is the third of three volumes which together comprise a selective historical and critical study of the development of moral philosophy. Here Terence Irwin covers the period from the late 18th to the late 20th century, with illuminating discussion of the Kantian tradition, utilitarianism, intuitionism, naturalism, idealism, and non-cognitivism.

v. 1. Philosophy before Socrates -- v. 2. Socrates and his contemporaries -- v. 3. Plato's ethics -- v. 4. Plato's metaphysics and epistemology -- v. 5. Aristotle's ethics -- v. 6. Aristotle: substance, form, and matter -- v. 7. Aristotle: metaphysics, epistemology, natural philosophy -- v. 8. Hellenistic philosophy.

According to G.E.M Anscombe’s paper ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’, modern moral philosophy has introduced a spurious concept of moral obligation, and has therefore made a mistake that the Greeks, and Aristotle in particular, avoided. Anscombe argues that the modern concepts of obligation, duty, and the moral ‘ought’ are the remnants of an earlier, but post-Aristotelian conception of ethics, and that they ought to be abandoned. An examination of Anscombe’s historical and philosophical claims shows that we have no reason to take them (...) seriously. In particular, they rest on a misinterpretation of Scholastic views on ‘ought’ and obligation. (shrink)

Terence Irwin presents a historical and critical study of the development of moral philosophy over two thousand years, from ancient Greece to the Reformation. Starting with the seminal ideas of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, he guides the reader through the centuries that follow, introducing each of the thinkers he discusses with generous quotations from their works. He offers not only careful interpretation but critical evaluation of what they have to offer philosophically. This is the first of three volumes (...) which will examine the history of ethics in the Socratic tradition, up to the late 20th century. (shrink)

Chapter 1 examines both what is Plato’s fundamental moral problem and how to read the Platonic dialogues as philosophical works. Concerning the former aspect, it is observed that Plato articulates the basic moral question, “What is the good life?” into two different problems: an epistemological one, “How ought we to live?” and a normative one, “How can we know how ought we to live?” Respecting the way Plato’s writings have to be interpreted, the so-called doctrinal approach is followed, i.e., the (...) most important doctrines are formulated by the principal speaker of the dialogue, while the other characters present several steps relevant for the argument. In conclusion, both Plato’s and Aristotle’s ways of interpreting Socrates’ theories are taken into account. (shrink)

Les stoïciens ont joué un rôle essentiel dans le développement de la casuistique. Selon eux, une conduite morale réfléchie suppose une théorie morale, et ils s’efforcent d’appliquer la théorie morale à l’analyse de cas particuliers. Nous pouvons saisir l’importance de leur contribution en considérant la façon dont elle sous-tend le système de casuistique issu de la philosophie morale scolastique qui apparaît au xvie siècle. Ma présentation des différentes étapes de l’histoire de la ca­suistique comporte de nombreuses lacunes, à la fois (...) parce que j’ai négligé plusieurs sources importantes et parce que j’ai laissé de côté des aspects significatifs de celles que j’examine. Peut-être cependant, réduite comme elle l’est à l’essentiel, l’esquisse que je présente aidera-t-elle à mettre en lumière l’importance des stoïciens. (shrink)

Aristotle''s account of vice presents a puzzle: (1) Viciouspeople must be guided by reason, since they act on decision(prohairesis), not on their non-rational desires. (2) And yet theycannot be guided by reason, since they are said to pay attention totheir non-rational part and not to live in accordance with reason. Wecan understand the conception of vice the reconciles these two claims,once we examine Aristotle''s account of (a) the pursuit of the fine andof the expedient; (b) the connexion between vice and (...) the pursuit ofpleasure; (c) the particular kind of regret to which the vicious personis subject. (shrink)

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the moral relevance of the theory of the division of soul. Firstly, it is examined why it is impossible to reconcile this doctrine with instrumentalism. Secondly, how the desires of the three different parts of the soul may be harmonised is investigated. Thirdly, after an elaborate study of the different parts of the soul, the reasons for this tripartition of the soul are introduced. Finally, it is examined whether or not the partition (...) of the soul results in different kinds of happiness. (shrink)

The core argument of chapter 9 is the thesis that the epistemological distinction between knowledge and beliefs introduced in the Meno plays a crucial role in the consideration of virtues. Thanks to this distinction, Plato can indeed dismiss the theory according to which virtues are only instrumental. Therefore, it is demonstrated that the theory of virtue of the early dialogues is the result of having knowledge of the importance of virtues but not a proper and true knowledge of them.

This chapter examines virtues of character as different forms of extended altruism, and hence of rational self-realisation. If Aristotle simply takes over the list of virtues from common sense and does not show how they promote the agent’s good and the common good, he has not shown that they are genuine virtues. If he connects the recognised virtues with the good of a rational agent, and with the common good of her community, then he answers the sceptic and the critic; (...) he relies on strong dialectic, appealing to his metaphysical account of the human essence to justify common beliefs about the virtues. (shrink)

The main task of chapter 3 is to consider how Socrates regards virtues. To start with, the aporetic character of Plato’s early dialogues is recalled. Then, it is investigated why Socrates refuses to define virtues in moral terms and rather prefers non-moral terms. Finally, a careful consideration of how Socrates evaluates some virtues and how he defines them is offered.

The Aristotelian virtues of character are moral virtues, concerned with the good of others. If moral virtues are eudaimonic virtues, Aristotle must show why the rational person will develop the moral virtues. A virtuous person loves herself as she really is, as a rational agent with stable character that accords primacy to practical reason in the choice of ends. Aristotle argues that correct self-love does not allow selfishness, and proper concern for others does not require self-sacrifice.

First Published in 1995. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Kant takes autonomy to be recognizably valuable. In claiming that non-Kantian views of morality treat the morally good will as heteronomous, he intends to present an objection to these views. He expects proponents of these views to recognize that the implication of heteronomy is a serious objection; his task is not to convince them that heteronomy is bad, but to convince them that their views imply heteronomy.

In this chapter, Plato’s view of justice is presented, which possibly differs from Socrates’. Plato’s “sufficient thesis”, is compared with the “comparative thesis”, held by Glaucon and Adeimantus. A detailed discussion of all the relevant problems of book II, the relation between happiness and justice, is outlined. In conclusion, some aspects of Plato’s view are critically evaluated.

Aristotle identifies soul with form, and body with matter. He assumes that to have a soul is to have the functional properties that are the form, and the relation of the soul to the body is the relation of the form to matter, and of actuality of potentiality. The De Anima not only discusses general questions about the relation of soul and body, but also describes the different states of the soul: perception, imagination, thought, and desire. If we examine this (...) aspect of the De Anima, we should be able to see whether Aristotle uses his general theory, and whether the theory is responsible for the better or worse of his account. (shrink)

Aristotle’s account of how the political community promotes the human good supports an account of the ideal state, and why actual states fall short of it. Aristotle attributes much of what is wrong with prevalent political systems to mistaken conceptions of happiness. Honour and sensual gratification are viewed as genuine intrinsic good; but the right sort of honour does not require competition for external goods, and the right extent of gratification does not require an unlimited supply of them. Virtuous action (...) is the primary constituent of happiness; ignorance of this explains the mistaken classification of goods in different political systems. (shrink)