Is the “Metaphysics of Vices” Possible in the Ethics of Aristotle?

Abstract

The main thesis in the article is put in the form of a medieval university debate, it consists in proving that Aristotle's ethics presuppose “metaphysics of vices”. Three objections are raised against this thesis. The first is that according to Aristotle, “viciousness destroys the principle”, which determines the metaphysical basis of the act. The second is that Aristotle describes depravity on the part of psychological and anthropological deviations, which presupposes an anthropology rather, than a “metaphysics of vices”. And, finally, the third objection is connected with the lack of “metaphysics of evil” in Aristotle's ethics, as an essential first principle along with good. Then a contradictory proposition is given, indicating the essential interconnection of vices and virtues: if virtues based on principles are correlated with metaphysical values (supreme good, striving for beauty, etc.), then vices must have a certain metaphysical basis. Otherwise, we will have a “bifurcated” ethic consisting of “metaphysics of virtues” and “anthropology of vices”, which contradicts the ethical doctrine of Aristotle.

After that, the answer itself is given, the essence of which is that the metaphysical principle in ethics is not in substantiating the nature and source of negative values (vices), but in the possibility of conscious choice and free preference. This means that moral values (virtues and vices) are related essentially to free will. The metaphysical principle here is that “a person is not simply burdened with virtue or vice” (N. Hartmann), but he/she is an agent of will expression, presupposing a free choice of one or the other, including intended violation and rejection of the principle of the highest good.