A Non-Aretaic Return to Aristotle
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22286197 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Leo Zaibert (0000-0002-0921-2777, Union College) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 97 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 235-250 |
| Publication date | 2011-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Archiv für Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0177-1108 • E-ISSN: 2363-5606 |
| Publisher | Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.25162/arsp-2011-0019 |
| OpenAlex | W35665399 |
| Language | EN |
This article criticizes the recent “aretaic-turn” in legal theory. Within Criminal law theory, the main concern of aretaic theorists is culpability, and their main source of inspiration is Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Too focused on Aristotle’s virtue ethics, however, aretaic theorists fail to consider Aristotle’s views on culpability proper. Aristotle himself did not turn to virtue ethics when he discussed culpability; and thus I suggest that Aristotle himself would have rejected the contemporary aretaic turn. Still, I believe that Aristotle’s work on culpability is important insofar as it laid the foundations of subsequent theories of culpability in most of the non-English-speaking West. Through Aristotle, then, I seek to show the relevance of rich and venerable legal and philosophical traditions for the advancement of our understating of some thorny problems of contemporary criminal law
Criminal law · Culpability · Epistemology · Political science · Sociology · Virtue · Free Will and Agency · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Legal principles and applications · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|