I just found a really interesting essay on Aristotle's virtue of Justice. I hope you can access this link OK:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/27823292.pdf

Lou

Wow, Ron, thank you so much for your detailed comments! You're clearly extremely well-informed about Aristotle.

The question is indeed interesting, although you make a good point about it never having come up on an official examination paper - let's hope it does now, right? I think the points you raise re the question are excellent, especially with the backing of other writers.

I finished the Nicomachean Ethics today and think I've now got a fuller understanding of Aristotle's moral theory - clearly I need to familiarise myself with some of the critical articles relating to the NE and Aristotle... It's a great learning experience though, and one we should continue to share with this forum.

Thanks again! Lou

Hello again LouFederer and everyone else on the Forum:

I'm continuing to reflect upon LouFederer's practice essay from the UoL Student Handbook question, whether Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean fits well with the concept of Justice.

6. One of the great classical scholars of the last (20th) century, Sir David Ross, also held that Aristotle was wrong to see Justice as working as a mean between two extremes. There is a very useful section of his book Aristotle, (London: Methuen, 1923), which covers Justice (pp. 209-215). There are two broad types of Justice: Universal Justice (what is lawful; it is coextensive with the whole of virtue...see my point #5 above) and Particular Justice, which resolves into two kinds, distribution of honors and wealth among citizens (distributive justice) and remedial justice (corrective of material imbalances from dealings between citizens); cf. Ross, pp. 209-210.

7. It appears, according to Aristotle, that justice and injustice determine each other. "...it follows for the most part that if one contrary is ambiguous the other also will be ambiguous; e.g. if 'just' is so, that 'unjust' will be so too." [Nicomachean Ethics, 1129a24-6; Barnes, ed., Complete Works of Aristotle, v. II, p. 1782]

8. Now it turns out that Aristotle isn't really too keen on analyzing Universal Justice: "Evidently, therefore, there is apart from injustice in the wide [sc. universal] sense another, particular, injustice which shares the name and nature of the first, because its definition falls within the same genus; for the force of both lies in a relation to others but the one is concerned with honour or money or safety--or that which includes all these, if we had a single name for it--and its motive is the pleasure that arises from gain; while the other is concerned with all the objects with which the good man is concerned." [NE, 1130a32-b5; Barnes, p. 1784]

9. Aristotle states his preference for analyzing Particular Justice in terms of its contrary, but the one characterizes its opposite, as I try to show Aristotle's argument (plausible, given the subject perhaps, but from a particular case to the general case (!) in (7)).

10. Anyway, here we go. Ross goes on to explain how Aristotle explains instances of Particular Justice; "The three types of person, then, whom Aristotle describes as acting justly are (1) the statesman, in distributing honours and rewards, (2) the judge, in assessing damages, (3) the farmer or manufacturer, in exchanging his goods at a fair price." [Ross, p. 213]

11. Ross argues that "The discussion [sc. above] has made it clear, Aristotle says, that just action is a mean between acting unjustly and being unjustly treated. This is inconsistent with the previous discussion [sc. in (10)]. The statesman and the judge, who distribute goods or assess damages justly, are in no danger of being unjustly treated; and the private citizen, who may be given too much or too little by the unjust act of the statesman or the judge, does not, so far as this goes, act at all, but is purely passive. The two points of view are confused. The only person who really chooses between the too much, the too little, and the right act is the man who chooses either to fulfil his contract or to depart from it to his own advantage or disadvantage. And he does not behave viciously. Thus the attempt to exhibit justice as a mean breaks down." [Ross, pp. 213-4].

12. Thus, David Ross, one of the premier Aristotelian scholars of the 20th century, also expresses deep misgivings about the virtue of Justice as being given by way of Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean.

Well, I'll try as best I can to try to salvage something for Aristotle in the next few posts. Hope this helps! --Ron Allen (waveletter)

Hi, I'm a new student and have only just joined this forum (and found it useful already, in particular, advice on how to structure one’s studies), but I have a question about the Subjects topics:  I see that the University’s VLE has a "course discussion forum" for each course, which looks like it may duplicate what is here. Is that a new feature of the VLE? If so, would it be better to use that instead? Likewise, doesn’t the Stucafe provide a facility similar to the General category here? I’m happy to go with whatever works best, but keen to avoid duplication. Cheers, Neil.

Hey Casey, Tim, and all:

Here's the email that I received today:

------------- snip ---------------------

Dear Student

As just announced on the VLE news page, we are launching a revised version of the BA in Philosophy as from Autumn 2012. It is a revision based on feedback we have had from students over the years and brings our programme into line with others in London and the UK.

My particular reason for writing to you now is that, although you are registered under the Old Regulations, I would like to bring the New Regulations BA to your attention, and I think that you may find it very much in your interest to transfer to the New Regulations if you are eligible.

I do urge you to look at the new Handbook and the New Regulations on the VLE, where you will find detailed accounts of the New Regulations. (Have a close look at Section 11, which details the regulations governing transfer.) You should note that if you have passed any courses with a mark of between 35-39% you would, unfortunately, not be eligible to transfer to the New Regulations. In order to help you in making your decision about transfer, I should like to bring your attention to certain general features of the new programme.

Firstly, while the Old Regulations BA involves ten courses, and the New Regulations twelve, if you look more closely you will see that this numerical difference does not mean that the there is any added burden in the New Regulations BA. In fact, the burden is likely to be somewhat less, and the academic benefit much greater. What follows below should make clear why this is so.

Secondly, one of the new courses that we have added is Introduction to Philosophy. Whereas before this didn't count towards the BA, it is now a Level 4 BA course. Some of you will have done this as part of a Diploma, and you will get automatic credit for it. But even if you haven't done it, we have made it part of the transfer arrangements that if you have passed three other Level 4 courses, you will get automatic credit for Introduction to Philosophy.

Thirdly, the other new course is the Dissertation at Level 6. This is an essay that you write at home, and you will get email advice in doing so, both at the planning stage and in respect of a draft of the essay. A Dissertation element is a standard part of the internal BA in Birkbeck, and in the UK generally. Students find that it helps them unify their knowledge of philosophy, and gives them a perspective on the subject that cannot be got from merely taking examinations. The arrangements for direct academic contact and feedback on this project are something our students have wanted for a long time.

Fourthly, you will see that in the New Regulations BA, all Level 4 and 5 courses are examined by two hour, two question papers, rather than by three hour examinations. This arrangement mirrors that of the internal BA in Philosophy at Birkbeck, and it will be obvious why it lightens the overall examination burden.

Putting these points together - as a philosopher, I expect you will be able to do -  should convince you that transferring to the New Regulation BA is a wholly good idea.

Finally, whether you do transfer or not, you will benefit from the fact that we are also completely revising the Subject Guides. Available online in time for the 2012-13 academic year, we have retained the syllabuses for each paper, but we have brought reading materials up to date. We have also endeavored to make the bulk of the reading materials for each course available online, either in JSTOR or in the Online Library. So while you might find it a good idea to purchase a few books, we hope that the difficulties of getting hold of study materials will be a thing of the past.

If you are intending to complete the BA programme at the end of the 2012/13 academic year you should note that it will only be possible to do so by remaining on the Old Regulations. The first time that it will be possible to complete the BA programme under the New Regulations will be at the end of the 2013/14 academic year as the Dissertation course will first be available from September 2013.

I do hope you will take up this offer to initiate a transfer from Old to New Regulations. If you have any questions in relation to the above information or wish to confirm your transfer to the New Regulations, please contact the Registration Office: http://enquiries.londoninternational.ac.uk or via the "ask a question" tab on the student portal.

May I take the opportunity to wish you every success with your remaining studies.


Samuel Guttenplan

Programme Director in Philosophy

----------------- snip -----------------------

A couple of observations:

1. Prof. Guttenplan says that if you have passed (but no marks in the 30s) three level 4 courses, you get credit for Intro to Philosophy.

2. You can enroll for the Dissertation beginning only in Sep 2013, which seems to mean that you could continue Old Regs for 2012/13, but then jump to New Regs for 13/14, per Tim's idea, and finish under New Regs with a BA in 2014. Why would you do Tim's idea? Well, because if you had some Level 4 and 5 courses left over, you could postpone them until your last year and take them as 2-hour, 2-question exams along with your dissertation essay. That way, you have no brutal, 3-hour, I-can't-write-with-a-paralyzed-hand exams in conjunction with your dissertation. Just benign, 2-hour papers.

I hadn't seen anyone else posting that they received this, so I thought I'd post my own email in its entirety just in case you're curious but somehow neglected. Thanks! --Ron