In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

One group of commentators whose discussion this essay joins includes John McDowell, Martha Nussbaum, Nancy Sherman, and Stephen G. Salkever. McDowell is an early contributor to the discussion. In “Virtue and Reason,” he claims that, for Aristotle, the cognitive component of ethical virtue is not knowledge of the applicability of a universal, a set of rules, or a code to a given situation, but perception of particulars as salient in the light of an uncodifiable view of how to live (1979, 331–350). According to Aristotle, McDowell says, the best generalizations about how to behave are only ‘for the most part’.1 This implies that, according to Aristotle, how one should live is not codifiable. Moreover , the universality of law must be supplemented by appreciation of the particular case.2 We have an uncodifiable view of how to live, however , one which issues in concerns which, due to uncodifiability, cannot be ranked. Instead, one’s uncodifiable view of how to live interacts with particular knowledge so that one concern or fact rather than another is seen as salient. According to McDowell, the important cognitive component of ethical virtue is this perception of particulars as salient in the light of one’s uncodifiable view of how to live. In “The Discernment of Perception” (1985) and The Fragility of Goodness (1986), Nussbaum joins the discussion. She maintains that, for Aristotle, the cognitive component of ethical virtue is not knowledge of universals or rules, but perception of particulars, that is, recognition of the salient features of complex, concrete situations (1990, 54–105). Though Aristotle does maintain that the person of practical 13 CHAPTER ONE Valuable Particulars wisdom utilizes a rule or general account (logos) in decision making, the rule Aristotle has in mind is not intended to be authoritative for decision making (NE 1106b36–1107a2). For, according to her, Aristotle maintains that the standard of excellence is not a universal or rule, but is what the person of practical wisdom would decide and, in addition, the person of practical wisdom does not utilize a universal or rule in making his or her decisions. Instead, the decision requires discernment and the discernment is in the perception of particulars.3 The rule, thus, is not authoritative for decision making, but is instead a mere rule of thumb, a summary of particular past decisions which, because it is such, is useful in guiding us to perceive the salient features of particular cases. In addition, in “Changing Aristotle’s Mind” and in The Fragility of Goodness, Nussbaum argues that emotions, for Aristotle, are forms of perception (Nussbaum and Putnam, 1992, 15–16).4 They have sorting or discriminatory power, as the accounts of the practical syllogism indicate . They lead or guide perception in situations requiring choice, as we can see from the fact that choice partakes both of intellect and of emotion (it is “desiderative deliberation or deliberative desire”) and from the fact that practical wisdom is interdependent with excellence of character (which is in part a disposition concerning emotion) (1986, 308).5 In The Fabric of Character, Sherman joins the discussion and argues that, according to Aristotle, the cognitive component of ethical virtue is not knowledge of the applicability of rules but is perception of ethical salience and that emotions are intentional states directed at articulated features of an agent’s environment through which we come to perceive particular circumstances, to recognize what is ethically salient (1989, chapter 2). For Aristotle, she maintains, ethical theories that begin with the justification of the decision to act begin too late since before making and justifying a decision, one must see that a situation calls for action, that is, one must see that the situation is ethically salient.6 Salkever adds his voice to the discussion in Finding the Mean. He argues that the cognitive component of ethical virtue is not deductively valid and necessary application of a scientific principle or a rule, but well-informed guessing, resting on a complex perception of the balance of importance and urgency likely to be best for us. Human goods are diverse and competing, as a number of examples indicate. Decisions require not the application of a rule, but the perception of an intelligent balance of the various competing goods (1990, chapter 3).7 The extent of the acceptance of this sort of interpretation of Aristotle ’s view of the cognitive component of ethical virtue and of emotion is indicated by the passing supposition of it in works devoted not specifically to...

Share