Deliberation, technical deliberation and good deliberation in Aristotelian ethics

0Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper faces the problem of how to determinate the framework in which, according to Aristotle, the deliberation and his results can be assessed: the decision and the consequent action. The problem emerges mainly because of what Aristotle calls “indetermination of deliberation,” since, in situations whose options about what to deliberate are blurred, it is difficult to determinate which is the framework that can be used to determinate if the decision resulting from the deliberation is accurate or not. To face this problem, in the first place, we distinguish between technical and moral deliberation. The distinction is framed in terms of the ends because in technical deliberation the end is extrinsic to the action itself, and for this reason it is possible to offer different assessments of the actions achieved. In moral deliberation, the ends are only intrinsic to the action, and they are determined only in behalf of their connection with good deliberation. So, it is only possible to establish an adequate normative framework to assess each deliberation based upon a “good deliberation model”, established by practical wisdom, and extended also for the community from which the subject takes part.

References Powered by Scopus

Aristotle on the Apparent Good: Perception, Phantasia, Thought, and Desire

146Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Aristotle on truth

126Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Actual utility, the objection from impracticality, and the move to expected utility

47Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Farieta, R. A. (2019). Deliberation, technical deliberation and good deliberation in Aristotelian ethics. Topicos (Mexico), (56), 11–48. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i56.991

Readers over time

‘19‘20‘21‘22‘2402468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 3

50%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

33%

Researcher 1

17%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 3

43%

Business, Management and Accounting 2

29%

Philosophy 1

14%

Design 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0