What is "the mean relative to us" in Aristotle's Ethics?

Brown, Lesley

doi:10.1163/156852897321163418

Cited by 62 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, in aiming for liberality, management consultants who are by nature very grasping, that is, deficient in liberality (eleutheriotes), face the opposite challenge to those who are by nature neglectful about money, that is, excessive in liberality (eleutheriotes). Brown (1997) argues, however, that this takes the phrase 'relative to us' too far, and that Aristotle simply means 'relative to us as human beings'. In other words, a person of moral virtue would locate the mean where someone possessed of the intellectual virtue of prudence (phronesis) would locate it.…”

Section: What Is the Function Of A Management Consultant?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Aristotle and the Management Consultants: Shooting for Ethical Practice

Shaw

2019

Philosophy of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The academic literature on management consulting raises many questions about the ethics of management consulting. The uncertain, emergent, and often socially constructed nature of management consultancy knowledge limits the scope both for regulating the industry in the manner of the established professions, and for evaluating management consultants' work objectively. The character of management consultants is therefore a central issue in how far clients and other stakeholders can trust them. This paper considers three questions, using Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics as a guide. These are, first, 'What is the function of a management consultant?', second, 'How should a management consultant act in order to be a good management consultant?', and third, 'Where does the boundary lie between the ethical responsibilities of the management consultant and those of the client and other stakeholders?' Aristotelian virtue ethics are valuable in answering these questions. Their focus on character is well suited to the distinct ethical problems of management consulting. Aristotle's overarching concern with human flourishing, and an ethically balanced approach towards benefiting from the good things to which a virtuous person may aspire, has more promise as an influence on consultants' behaviour than the lists of prohibitions that typify codes of ethical practice in the industry. Aristotle's call for leaders to habituate their people to ethical behaviour should be heard by the leaders of management consultancy firms. In accordance with Aristotle's philosophy, this paper proposes a positive target at which management consultants can aim in shooting for ethical practice.

show abstract

Section: What Is the Function Of A Management Consultant?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Aristotle and the Management Consultants: Shooting for Ethical Practice

Shaw

2019

Philosophy of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aristotle's point in this passage is in service of his distinction between two types of means, the mathematical mean and the mean relative to us. And as Lesley Brown has shown, Aristotle speaks rather broadly in this passage in order to make his point, offering claims that appear to be universal but by his own lights allow for exceptions (1997( , 89, cf. Brown 2014.…”

Section: Aspasius and Excessive Virtuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…But-and this is what poses the problem for heroic virtue-since it is relative to her, when the heroically good agent hits the mean, the action is not heroically good, but is (simply) good. Fortunately, Brown 1997Brown (cf. 2014 has argued convincingly that we should not take Aristotle as saying that the mean is agent-relative.…”

Section: A Mean-friendly Account Of Heroic Virtuementioning

confidence: 99%

Degrees of Virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics

Reed¹

2017

Ancient Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue that Aristotle believes that virtue comes in degrees. After dispatching with initial concerns for the view, I argue that we should accept it because Aristotle conceives of heroic virtue as the highest degree of virtue. I support this interpretation of heroic virtue by considering and rejecting alternative readings, then showing that heroic virtue characterized as the highest degree of virtue is consistent with the doctrine of the mean. In this paper I investigate two issues regarding Aristotle's ethical landscape in his Nicomachean Ethics, both of which have received less scholarly attention than they deserve. The first is whether Aristotle believes that there are degrees of true human virtue, henceforth, 'DOV'. 1 The second is how Aristotle conceives of heroic virtue. 2 I take these two issues to be intimately related-a claim I argue for below-so that any light shed on one of them will likewise illuminate the other. My investigation proceeds as follows. First, I consider the question of whether Aristotle endorses DOV. After raising and replying to some apparent problems with an affirmative answer, I argue that since Aristotle holds that there are people who have heroic virtue, that is, I'll claim, have the highest degree of virtue, he is committed to DOV. Because my argument relies on the claim that heroic virtue is the highest degree of virtue, I turn next to a defense of this interpretation. To this end, I examine alternative interpretations of heroic virtue. After arguing that each alternative interpretation fails, I detail my account of heroic virtue as 1 Although some commentators seem to agree with my claim that Aristotle endorses DOV (e.g.

show abstract

“… Aristotle describes virtue of character as a mean state (NE 2.6 1106a14‐15) and insists that virtue finds and chooses what is the mean in both feelings and actions (1106b16‐18, 1107a2‐6). For discussion of the doctrine of the mean, see for example Brown (, ), Curzer (), Hardie (), Leighton (). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What's Aristotelian about neo‐Aristotelian Virtue Ethics?

Hirji

2018

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly assumed that Aristotle's ethical theory shares deep structural similarities with neo‐Aristotelian virtue ethics. I argue that this assumption is a mistake, and that Aristotle's ethical theory is both importantly distinct from the theories his work has inspired, and independently compelling. I take neo‐Aristotelian virtue ethics to be characterized by two central commitments: (i) virtues of character are defined as traits that reliably promote an agent's own flourishing, and (ii) virtuous actions are defined as the sorts of actions a virtuous agent reliably performs under the relevant circumstances. I argue that neither of these commitments are features of Aristotle's own view, and I sketch an alternative explanation for the relationship between virtue and happiness in the Nicomachean Ethics. Although, on the interpretation I defend, we do not find in Aristotle a distinctive normative theory alongside deontology and consequentialism, what we do find is a way of thinking about how prudential and moral reasons can come to be aligned through a certain conception of practical agency.

show abstract

What is "the mean relative to us" in Aristotle's Ethics?

Cited by 62 publications

References 0 publications

Aristotle and the Management Consultants: Shooting for Ethical Practice

Aristotle and the Management Consultants: Shooting for Ethical Practice

Degrees of Virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics

What's Aristotelian about neo‐Aristotelian Virtue Ethics?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About