Archiwum
Filozofii Prawa
i Filozofii Społecznej

Journal of the Polish Section of IVR (ISSN:2082-3304)

IVR
  • About us
  • Aim & scope
  • News
  • Issues
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
  • Editorial board
    • Board Members
    • Reviewers
  • For authors
  • Ethics
  • Contact
  • Polski

Aitia – Aristotelian guilt. Definitional issues (part 2)

Dr Waldemar Gontarski

European School of Law and Administration 

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 mental capabilities of the actor in respect to a 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 the 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 the related 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

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(6)/2013, pp. 68-92.

Download: Download
Number of downloads:
136

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Aristotle, justice, the triad of causes, the triad of consequences

Aitia – Aristotlelian guilt. Definitional issues

Dr Waldemar Gontarski

European School of Law and Administration

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

Language: Polish

Published: Number 2(15)/2012, pp. 51-66.

Download: Download
Number of downloads:
124

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Aristotle, justice, the triad of causes, the triad of consequences

Szukaj

Categories

  • Articles
  • Bez kategorii
  • Editorial
  • In Memoriam
  • News
  • Reports
  • Reviews and discussions

Keywords

mutual justifications euphemisms social choice theory Tomasz Grzybowski hybrid interpretation of law veil of ignorance protection of the memory of the deceased cultural pluralism narrative disagreement Michał Pełka principle of proportionality legal interpretation collective memory narrative Paweł Łabieniec public interest advocate Hanna Dębska strict scrutiny test individual and political freedom international society populism positive rights Saul Kripke legal validity transnational memory of the Holocaust Anscombe Arkadiusz Barut Paulus Vladimiri validation-derivative approach ethical relativism philosophy of dialogue statutory interpretation law and ethics professional competence responsibility vagueness state of exception state law naturalism public morality Russian law alienation of law and society legal reasoning nature and complexity of law primatology minimal morality justice as fairness Hans Kelsen emotions collective guilt

Copyright © 2023 Polska Sekcja Międzynarodowego Stowarzyszenia Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej IVR | Administrator strony: Karolina Gmerek

Ta strona używa plików cookies. Zakładamy, że wyrażają Państwo na to zgodę, ale mogą Państwo także wyłączyć pliki cookies w Ustawieniach. //
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. (Zob. więcej // Read more) Ustawienia // SettingsZGODA // ACCEPT

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT