Archiwum Filozofii Prawa
i Filozofii Społecznej Journal of the Polish Section of IVR ISSN 2082-3304 Logo Polskiej Sekcji IVR Polska Sekcja IVR ↗

Artykuł naukowy

Aitia – Aristotlelian guilt. Definitional issues

Article authors
  1. Waldemar Gontarski

Aitia – wina arystotelesowska. Zagadnienia definicyjne. Część I

Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, nr 2(5)/2012, s. 51-66

DOI 10.36280/afpifs.2012.2.51 ↗
Issue
nr 2(5)/2012
Pages
51-66
Published
Article language
English

Polish

Translated abstract

When engaging in polemics with Pythagoras, Aristotle observed that the retributive function of punishment, as distinguished from the preventative one, does not involve revenge understood as material retaliation (i.e. suffering for suffering, meaning retaliation proportional to the damage suffered). It does not encompass a simple reciprocity, such as suffering in turn (ἀντιπάσχω), but instead shall be considered as a just reciprocity, meaning doing in return (ἀντιποιέω), whereby the degree of mental contribution is taken into account. The classical theory of responsibility, at least under the meaning assigned to it by Aristotle, considers human responsibility by means of reference to the mental capabilities of the actor in respect to the particular harmful action. An action involving human guilt is consequently contrasted with an accidentally caused action. In the works of Stagirite the mental attitude of the actor towards his action distinguishes human causation from the accidental one and from the forced one. Pythagoras, on the other hand, discussed material retaliation, meaning objective responsibility. At the same time, the author of Nicomachean Ethics had already experienced the system of subjective responsibility based on the concept of knowingly caused damage as opposed to the system of objective responsibility involving the objective causal relationship between actor’s behavior and the resulting damage. Aristotle has extended the concept of subjective responsibility to cover both knowingly caused damage (intentional fault) and unintentional fault, whereby the damage is directly caused by the negligent conduct of the actor, meaning the failure of the latter to observe required objective and abstract standards. The mental component and related to it subjectivization involve the actor possessing required intellectual capabilities, but not using them in a way as to observe the aforementioned imposed standards. Nonetheless, the potential mental component is itself not sufficient to establish guilt. Otherwise, all the people (apart from those lacking capacity at all) shall be declared guilty regardless of the fact that the damage was caused by them accidentally.

Translated keywords

  • Arystoteles
  • triada przyczyn
  • triada skutków
  • sprawiedliwość

English

Abstract

When engaging in polemics with Pythagoras, Aristotle observed that the retributive function of punishment, as distinguished from the preventative one, does not involve revenge understood as material retaliation (i.e. suffering for suffering, meaning retaliation proportional to the damage suffered). It does not encompass a simple reciprocity, such as suffering in turn (ἀντιπάσχω), but instead shall be considered as a just reciprocity, meaning doing in return (ἀντιποιέω), whereby the degree of mental contribution is taken into account. The classical theory of responsibility, at least under the meaning assigned to it by Aristotle, considers human responsibility by means of reference to the mental capabilities of the actor in respect to the particular harmful action. An action involving human guilt is consequently contrasted with an accidentally caused action. In the works of Stagirite the mental attitude of the actor towards his action distinguishes human causation from the accidental one and from the forced one. Pythagoras, on the other hand, discussed material retaliation, meaning objective responsibility. At the same time, the author of Nicomachean Ethics had already experienced the system of subjective responsibility based on the concept of knowingly caused damage as opposed to the system of objective responsibility involving the objective causal relationship between actor’s behavior and the resulting damage. Aristotle has extended the concept of subjective responsibility to cover both knowingly caused damage (intentional fault) and unintentional fault, whereby the damage is directly caused by the negligent conduct of the actor, meaning the failure of the latter to observe required objective and abstract standards. The mental component and related to it subjectivization involve the actor possessing required intellectual capabilities, but not using them in a way as to observe the aforementioned imposed standards. Nonetheless, the potential mental component is itself not sufficient to establish guilt. Otherwise, all the people (apart from those lacking capacity at all) shall be declared guilty regardless of the fact that the damage was caused by them accidentally.

Keywords

  • Aristotle
  • the triad of causes
  • the triad of consequences
  • justice
Full text PDF How to cite

References

43 reference entries

References

  1. Abramowiczówna, Z., Appel, W. (2006). Słownik polsko -starogrecki. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.

  2. Amielańczyk, K. (2011). Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. Ustawa Korneliusza Sulli przeciwko nożownikom i trucicielom 81 r. p.n.e. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie - Skłodowskiej.

  3. Amielańczyk, K. (2006). Rzymskie prawo karne w reskryptach cesarza Hadriana. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.

  4. Aristotle. (1959). Aristotelis ars rhetorica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  5. Aristotle. (1894). Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  6. Aristotle. (1926). Art of Rhetoric. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.

  7. Aristotele. (2007). Die Nikomachische Ethik. Düsseldorf: De Gruyter.

  8. Aristotle. (2002). Dzieła wszystkie, v. 5. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

  9. Aristotle. (1982). Dzieła wszystkie, v. 7. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

  10. Aristotle. (1924). Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  11. Aristotle. (1934). Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.

  12. Aristotele. (1921). Nikomachische Ethik. Leipzig: Felix Meiner.

  13. Aristotle. (2004). The Art of Rhetoric. London: Penguin Books.

  14. Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean Ethics. London: Penguin Books.

  15. Aristotle. (2009). The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  16. Benöhr, H-P. (1965). Das sogenannte Synallagma in den Konsensualkontrakten des klassischen römischen Rechts. Hamburg: De Gruyter.

  17. Burczak, K. (2010). Sacrilegium w „Dekrecie” Gracjana. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

  18. Duszak, A., Hejwowski, K., Cichawa, P. (2003). (Eds.) Słownik angielsko -polski Cambridge. Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka.

  19. Gintowt, E. (1961). Amapthma – culpa. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Seria A: Nauki Społeczne 34.

  20. Golecki, M.J. (2008). Synallagma. Filozoficzne podstawy odpowiedzialności kontraktowej w klasycznym prawie rzymskim. Toruń: Dom Wydawniczy Duet.

  21. Gontarski, W. (2009). Toksyczne opcje walutowe. Zarys teorii prawa na przykładzie polskich opcji walutowych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Zrzeszenia Prawników Polskich.

  22. Homer. (1920). Homeri Opera in five volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  23. Jońca, M. (2004). Ateńskie procesy o zabójstwa w V i IV wieku p.n.e. In A. Dębiński (Ed.), Współczesna romanistyka prawnicza w Polsce. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

  24. Jońca, M. (2008). Parricidium w prawie rzymskim. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

  25. Kacprzak, A., Krzynówek, J. (2008). Prawo rzymskie. Pytania. Kazusy. Tablice. Warszawa: C. H. Beck.

  26. Kambureli, M.T., Kamburelis, T. (2004). Podręczny słownik grecko-polski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wiedza Powszechna.

  27. Kelly, J.M. (2006). Historia zachodniej teorii prawa. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM.

  28. von Lasaulx, E. (1849). Über die Bücher des Königs Numa. Ein Beitrag zur Religionsphilosophie. Munich: Auf Kosten der Akademie gedruckt.

  29. Leopold, E.F. (1830). (Ed.) Lexicon graeco-latinum manuale ex optimis libris concinn atum. Leipzig: Ex officina Tauchnitii.

  30. Makarewicz, J. (1932). Kodeks karny z komentarzem. Lwów: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.

  31. Makarewicz, J. (2 009). Wstęp do filozofii prawa karnego. W oparciu o podstawy historyczno -rozwojowe. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

  32. Morwood, J., Taylor, J. (2002). (Eds.), The Pocket Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  33. Politis, V. (2004). Aristotle and the Metaphysics. London: Routledge.

  34. Połatyńska, J. (2003). Equity – słuszność w prawie międzynarodowym publicznym. Państwo i Prawo 3, 42–51.

  35. Reale, G. (2008). Historia filozofii starożytnej, v. 2: Platon i Arystoteles. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

  36. Reale, G. (2003). Myśl starożytna. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

  37. Soniewicka, M. (1954). Granice sprawiedliwości, sprawiedliwość ponad granicami. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.

  38. Stowasser, J.M., Petschenig, M. (2009). Lateinisch-Deutsches Schulwörterbuch. Munich: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag.

  39. Thomas Aquinas. (1962). Suma teologiczna, t. 6: Człowiek. London: Katolicki Ośrodek Wydawniczy Veritas.

  40. Thomas Aquinas. (2000). Traktat o człowieku. Kęty: Wydawnictwo Antyk.

  41. Willmann, O. (1909). Aristoteles als Pädagog und Didaktiker. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.

  42. Wołodkiewicz, W. (2009). Europa i prawo rzymskie. Szkice z europejskiej kultury prawnej. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.

  43. Zoeller, M. (1895). Römische Staatsund Rechtsaltertümer: Ein Kompendium für das Stadium und die Praxis. Wrocław: W. Koebner.

Publication information

Author and affiliation

Waldemar Gontarski

Europejska Wyższa Szkoła Prawa i Administracji

Issue data

Issue nr 2(5)/2012

Pages
51-66
Published
AccessOtwarty LicenceCC BY 4.0 ↗

How to cite

Bibliographic description and verified export formats.

Format AFPiFS

W. Gontarski, Aitia – Aristotlelian guilt. Definitional issues, „Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej” nr 2(5)/2012, s. 51–66, DOI: 10.36280/afpifs.2012.2.51

Export citation data