Adultery, Theft, Murder: Aristotelian Practical Rationality and Absolute Prohibitions

Abstract

In a neglected passage, Aristotle affirms that certain action-types and emotions – for example, murder, and shamelessness – 'have names that imply badness’ and are categorically prohibited ( EN II.6 1107a8–15). Two questions are of interest. First, on Aristotle’s view, why are these act-types and emotions always vicious? Whether giving little money or feeling anger are vicious is context sensitive. Why aren’t murder and its ilk like that? Second, why are the prohibitions absolute? Why shouldn’t, say, the prospect of avoiding disaster justify them, even if vicious? In this paper, I address these questions. I finish by responding to an objection by Peter Geach.