Consider Aristotle's ethical discussion as an attempt to evaluate the Socratic and Platonic notion that virtue and knowledge are two sides of one coin. Start with Book i, chapter 6. Aristotle does go in a different direction from other Platonists. But this should not be surprising nor is it a reason to assume that Aristotle does not depend on Plato in many ways. His discussion of the "Good" and the "good" with respect to various categories is a development of dialogue among all 4th century Platonists. The best way to think about this is to assume that Aristotle explores questions he considers that others did not answer. Boethius, as we will see, has no problem assuming that Aristotle and Plato are fundamentally similar - they are both with "Philosophia". Aristotle is a Platonist, too, in this sense.
Our discussion of Books i-iii will look for the question Aristotle wants to ask. His interests are in the voluntary nature of actions and the degree of responsibility for actions. We will be moving from a comparison with Plato to the direct discussion of virtue and voluntary actions (see especially Book iii, 1 and 5, pp. 53 and 66). The idea of choice (proairesis) here is central. Aristotle means a special category of moral choice that is blamed when it chooses wrongly. It is not to be mixed with "right opinion", importantly, because "Nor does it seem that the same people make the best choices and also hold the best opinions: some hold rather good opinions, but because of a moral depravity they do not make the right choice. " (p. 59).
P. 53: "Virtue then is about feelings and actions. These receive praise or blame when they are voluntary, but pardon, sometimes even pity, when they are involuntary. Hence, presumably, in examining virtue we must define the voluntary and the involuntary...."
In general, Aristotle raises these issues in a systematic way, abandoning the dialogue form employed by Plato. As a result Aristotle appears to take a more logical and perhaps even "scientific" approach. How to define voluntary and involuntary becomes the focus of discussion. This can be deceiving, however. Plato and Aristotle both continue to raise questions that will dominate our discussions until the end of the semester. The discussion of "free will" in a Christian context from Boethius to Dante is initiated by Aristotle, in certain respects. Aristotle's Book i discussion of "happiness" anticipates the discussion of Christian salvation, for example. Yet, Plato always is present.
How many different explanations of "Happiness" (eudaimonia) can you find?
Aristotle has a very specific usage in mind for the words "voluntary" (p. 52ff), "choice" (p. 58), "deliberation" (p. 60), and "wish" (p. 63). This discussion is placed between the introduction to virtues (p. 46-47) and the account of specific virtues (and vices) beginning with courage (p. 68). Consider how the discussion of "wish" (p. 63) returns to questions raised about the "Good" in Book i.6: The good seems to differ with different individuals Only the man/woman of "high moral standards" can truly see "the truth in each particular moral question." (p. 64).
Why are we reading Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics now instead of earlier at the time we discussed Plato's Politeia ? Medieval scholasticism depends most directly on Aristotle.