Peter Auriol is a good example of the debate over the nature of habits, moral habits (i.e. virtues and vices) in particular, that raged at the University of Paris in the early fourteenth century. This chapter examines Peter Auriol’s basic understanding of habits and virtues in his quodlibetal questions and his commentary on the Sentences. The first part is devoted to the ontological status of virtues and other habitual dispositions and examines why, according to Auriol, habits are qualities. The second part turns to the unity of virtues. Since Auriol holds that one and the same moral virtue belongs to different psychological powers, the question arises of how to account for the unity of virtues and other similar dispositions. In the last part, the chapter turns to the question of what role virtues and practical habits have in the causation of action. Interestingly, Auriol denies that virtues have any direct causal role.
CITATION STYLE
Pickavé, M. (2018). Peter Auriol on Habits and Virtues. In Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action (Vol. 7, pp. 245–261). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00235-0_13
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.