Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Logo Thémata

RESEARCH PAPERS

No. 65

Praxis, damages and intention. An approach to the problem of posthumous damage without a victim in the Aristotelian base

DOI
https://doi.org/10.12795/themata.2022.i65.18
Submitted
February 1, 2022
Published
2022-07-11
Versions

Abstract

This article tries to show some deficiencies in the understanding of the human action in the debate of harms without victim. Those deficiencies can be surpassed with the thought of Aristotle and can resolve some paradoxes or difficulties that would otherwise arise if his thought is not taken into account.

References

  1. Aristóteles. Ética a Nicómaco. Translated by María Araujo and Julián Marías, 11th ed., CPC, 2018.
  2. ---. Metafísica de Aristóteles: edición trilingüe. Edited by Valentín García Yebra, Gredos, 2018.
  3. Beere, Jonathan. Doing and Being: An Interpretation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Theta. Oxford University Press, 2009. University Press Scholarship, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206704.001.0001.
  4. Cruz Prados, Alfredo. Ethos y Polis. Bases Para Una Reconstrucción de La Filosofía Política. EUNSA, 2015.
  5. Da Silva, Michael. “On Barbara Baum Levenbook’s ‘Harming Someone after His Death.’” Ethics, vol. 125, no. 4, 2015, pp. 1160–63. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/680887.
  6. Grover, Dorothy. “Posthumous Harm.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), vol. 39, no. 156, 1989, pp. 334–53. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2220175.
  7. Juarrero, Alicia. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. A Bradford Book, 1999.
  8. Levenbook, Barbara Baum. “Harming Someone after His Death.” Ethics, vol. 94, no. 3, 1984, pp. 407–19.
  9. Martí Sánchez, Miguel. “Amistad y reconocimiento. Sobre la philia aristotélica. Lo que Aristóteles vio y Hegel pasó por alto.” Contrastes. Revista Internacional de Filosofía, vol. 22, no. 3, 3, 2017, pp. 37–50. revistas.uma.es, https://doi.org/10.24310/Contrastescontrastes.v22i3.3755.
  10. Partridge, Ernest. “Posthumous Interests and Posthumous Respect.” Ethics, vol. 91, no. 2, 1981, pp. 243–64. JSTOR.
  11. Pitcher, George. “The Misfortunes of the Dead.” American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, 1984, pp. 183–88.
  12. Portmore, Douglas W. “Desire Fulfillment and Posthumous Harm.” American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 1, 2007, pp. 27–38.
  13. Ross, David. Foundations of Ethics. Oxford University Press, 1939.
  14. Taylor, James Stacey. “The Myth of Posthumous Harm.” American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 4, 2005, pp. 311–22.
  15. Thiebaut, Carlos. “Mal, daño y justicia.” Azafea: Revista de Filosofía, vol. 7, 2005, pp. 15–46. revistas.usal.es, https://doi.org/10.14201/3786.
  16. Torralba, José María. Acción intencional y razonamiento práctico según G.E.M. Anscombe. EUNSA, 2005, https://www.eunsa.es/libro/accion-intencional-y-razonamiento-practico-segun-g-e-m-anscombe_101851/.
  17. Vigo, Alejandro Gustavo. Aristóteles. Una Introducción. Instituto de Estudios de la Sociedad, 2006.
  18. ---. “La concepción aristotélica del silogismo práctico: en defensa de una interpretación restrictiva.” Dianoia: anuario de Filosofía, vol. 55, no. 65, 2010, pp. 3–39.
  19. ---. “Libertad como causa: Heidegger, Kant y el problema metafísico de la libertad.” Anuario filosófico, vol. 43, no. 97, 2010, pp. 161–81.
  20. ---. “Praxis Como Modo de Ser Del Hombre. La Concepción Aristotélica de La Acción Racional.” Filosofía de La Acción: Un Análisis Histórico-Sistemático de La Acción y La Racionalidad Práctica En Los Clásicos de La Filosofía, edited by Gustavo Leyva, Editorial Síntesis : Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, 2008, pp. 53–85.
  21. WINTER, STEPHEN. “Against Posthumous Rights.” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 27, no. 2, 2010, pp. 186–99.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.