Individual and Conflict in Greek Ethics

Since the 18th century, and indeed since before Hegel, moral philosophers wishing to oppose the supposed dualism of rationality or morality versus inclination, especially as it is manifested in Kant, have looked to Greek thought for an alternative conception of ethical norms and the good life. As a result, Greek ethics, particularly in the so-called Classical period of the 4th century BCE, has for more than two centuries been standardly thought to be fundamentally eudaimonist, and to have the character of what is nowadays normally called the ethics of virtue. Nicholas White argues that although this picture of Greek ethics is not without an element of truth, it nevertheless seriously distorts the facts.In the first place, he argues, Greek thought is far more variegated than the picture suggests. Secondly, it contains many elements - even in the Classical thinkers Plato and Aristotle - that are not eudaimonist and also not suitable for an ethics of virtue. Greek thinkers were not as a group convinced of the possibility of a harmony of one´s happiness with full regard for the happiness of others and with conformity to ethical norms.
Contents: Deliberate Conflict: Some Recent Philosophical Concepts; Imperatives in Greek Ethics; The City-State in Greek Ethics; Individual Good and Deliberatice Conflict Through the Time of Plato; Individual Good and Deliberative Conflict in Aristotle; Conflict and Individual Good in Hellenistic Ethics; Towards an Understanding of the History of Greek Ethics.