What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ethics of Aristotle
12 lectures taught by Professor Joseph Koterski, S.J., Fordham University, in 2001. 12 lectures / 30 minutes per lecture. Lectures are: The Philosopher of Common Sense, What Is the Purpose of Life?, What is Moral Excellence?, Courage and Moderation, The Social Virtues, Types of Justice, The Intellectual Virtues, Struggling to Do Right, Friendship and the Right Life, What Is Friendship?, Pleasure and the Right Life and Attaining True Happiness.
Audio Cassette
First published January 1, 2001
24 people are currently reading
224 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
September 16, 2009
Because Joseph Koterski is a Jesuit priest as well as being an academic philosopher, I was a little suspicious listening to his taped lectures that he would have a religious bias. But my fears were quite unfounded, as Koterski proved thoroughly professional and impartial. In fact he was so rigorous and thoughtful, that he made me consider taking Aristotle as a personal guide to the good life, as I might take Socrates or the Buddha.
Koterski discussed the connections of Aristotle with a wide variety of other philosophers, from the Stoics and Epicureans of antiquity, to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in Christian history, to Hannah Arendt and Martha Nussbaum in the contemporary world. In each case he made careful distinctions and was impartial in his judgments.
What appeals most to me in Aristotle’s thought, and what Koterski discusses in some detail, is the idea of coordinating one’s thoughts and one’s passions, so that one refines one’s passions by thoughtful choices, and one refines one’s choices by cultivated passions. This integrity between thought and feeling suggests a more grounded life than do the more intellectualized approaches of later ethicists such as Kant or Mill.
I felt personally challenged by one anecdote that Koterski told. In discussing Aristotle’s emphasis on character, or virtuous habit, he reported that his mother, in a nursing home with Alzheimer’s, was characterized by her caregivers as a sweet and agreeable woman. He gave this as an example that character survives, even when reason and memory do not. With my own mother in similar circumstances, with a similarly enduring character, I had considerable pause to think about the power of character.
Koterski discussed the connections of Aristotle with a wide variety of other philosophers, from the Stoics and Epicureans of antiquity, to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in Christian history, to Hannah Arendt and Martha Nussbaum in the contemporary world. In each case he made careful distinctions and was impartial in his judgments.
What appeals most to me in Aristotle’s thought, and what Koterski discusses in some detail, is the idea of coordinating one’s thoughts and one’s passions, so that one refines one’s passions by thoughtful choices, and one refines one’s choices by cultivated passions. This integrity between thought and feeling suggests a more grounded life than do the more intellectualized approaches of later ethicists such as Kant or Mill.
I felt personally challenged by one anecdote that Koterski told. In discussing Aristotle’s emphasis on character, or virtuous habit, he reported that his mother, in a nursing home with Alzheimer’s, was characterized by her caregivers as a sweet and agreeable woman. He gave this as an example that character survives, even when reason and memory do not. With my own mother in similar circumstances, with a similarly enduring character, I had considerable pause to think about the power of character.
May 10, 2019
Fr. Koterski presents an accessible, high-level overview of the Nicomachean Ethics, helpfully discussing the implications of Aristotle's thought for future thinkers, such as Aquinas.
January 4, 2022
Notes I've taken:
• Purpose and happiness
• Moral excellence, virtue, justice, and moderation (without being extreme)
• Courage, boldness, and cowardice
• Habit of choosing - difficult to acquire but will become second nature, become pleasurable
It would be interesting to compare with virtue ethics by Confucius.
• Dao (道) - way, just right (without being extreme)
• Emphasis on ritual, action, and embodiment
• Purpose and happiness
• Moral excellence, virtue, justice, and moderation (without being extreme)
• Courage, boldness, and cowardice
• Habit of choosing - difficult to acquire but will become second nature, become pleasurable
It would be interesting to compare with virtue ethics by Confucius.
• Dao (道) - way, just right (without being extreme)
• Emphasis on ritual, action, and embodiment
June 20, 2021
This book attempts to summarize Artistotle's theory of ethics and morality. Like all traditional moral theories, Aristotle bases his theory of human conduct as pursuit of happiness -- it being the basest and most simple yet most profound desire of man. The author begins the book with a summary of Aristotle's life and philosophy, then addresses the deviations from Socratic (Platonic) thought, and agreement with Socratic (Socratic, now) thought. Aristotle is one of those philosophers whose ethics is also a moral philosophy. (Moral philosophy is the science of happiness: How men ought to live their lives to be happy; what kind of life is considered the good life; how to maximize well-being in this life. Ethics is a science of traditions and customs that increase the welfare of the society and bring about a better community. Philosophers who think that living a good life brings about a good society have an integrated, often united, moral philosophy and ethics.)
Aristotle's moral philosophy consists of five parts. I shall address each. First of all, Aristotle might be the last person on Earth we would call traditional. But his philosophy is extremely traditional in the philosophical sense. His ethics and moral philosophy is targeted towards the common man. And in his writings, he aims to help us live better life, and does not go into long asides trying to make allowance for extreme conditions (the ethics for the times of war, how can a severely crippled man be happy, can brain-dead human beings be moral, etc).
The five most important ideas in Aristotle's ethics are: (1) To be moral (happy, here), one has to pursue what is good, and avoid what is evil; (2) The ultimate benevolent act is thought; (3) Virtue is a means between extremes; (4) The good life is a life worthy of emulation; (5) Exercise is the only path to human excellence. Let us uncouple those ideas.
(1) As Socrates reminds us, someone who pursues evil will be punished first and foremost by his conscience, while someone who does good will receive gratification from his own sense of virtue-achievement. But here, Aristotle differs from Socrates in that Socrates conflates virtue with knowledge: Every wrong is done out of ignorance, but not every good is done out of knowledge. We realize in Socrates that knowledge is necessary for a consistent morality. Aristotle agrees with the second clause, emphasizing that often, doing good without knowledge isn't necessarily a virtuous action (e.g. suppose I shove you out of resentment but shoving you pushes you away from a speeding bike). But Aristotle does not share with Socrates the belief in the first clause: Someone might act malevolently with knowledge of the error of his actions and to claim that it is because he doesn't truly understand what will make him happy will ultimately undermine all our moral actions since we cannot know of the path to our ultimate happiness. That kind of knowledge is remote and not always accessible to us.
(2) Then how can we know of what's good and what's bad so as to pursue it? By thought, and by thought alone. Thinking, especially if we habitualize it, and if it was critical and informed, is the only way to knowledge. Aristotle here also differs with Platonic dialogue that all knowledge can be accessed through thought. He believes that empirical sensory knowledge is essential to our understanding of the world. This claim is metaphysical as well as Plato's claim. Thinking alone, without experience, can only go so far into the world, and therefore empiricism is necessary. One has to venture into the world and try new things to understand the underlying mechanisms of the world. Thought is the ultimate pathway to benevolence because, as we previously explained, without really understanding why any action is good or bad, it is not possible to consistently be good. One has to think about all things to understand whether they will bring about his happiness or not. Impulsive action will not be enough, and nor is over-contemplation.
(3) We all know that water is necessary for life. But to drink 9 gallons of water a day is definitely not safe. There is a golden mean. Not drinking water (complete dehydration) and drinking too much water (water intoxication) are both lethal, and the mean (around half to one gallon per day) is the golden mean. The same goes for all behaviours. Sometimes, a kid might not know of the dangers of handling snakes -- such a kid is not courageous, but foolhardy. A strong and capable man who sees his friends being attacked without doing anything even though he is able to help and wanting to help is also not courageous, but cowardly. The mean is bravery in courage: To know exactly the dangers of any such actions, and to act when appropriate and after careful considerations. And similarly for the rest of behaviours. This is a computational and analytic approach to ethics in his Eudemian Ethics that all actions can fall into. Of course, it is fallacious to bring any extreme to the mean, and Aristotle points out the case of adultery: Adultery is the mean to which two extremes? Adultery itself is an extreme, and that's a class of problems that one has to be wary of when analysing the ethics of any action.
(4) The good life is a life worthy of emulation. That is at the core of Aristotle's definition of well-being. But who assesses which life is worthy of emulation? Is it society, or peers? Aristotle believes in the relative rationality of the persons in society, but that question is deeply subjective, and in one sense objective. It is subjective in the sense that to us, not all lives are worthy of emulation. To many scholars, Karl Marx is the ultimate social academic, mixing scholarly work with activism to bring about the change to the world that is within his theories. But as opposed to literature professors and sociologists, many philosophers and economists recognize Marx as a fraud. So is his life worth living? Similarly, most physicists would want such an astonishing career as Albert Einstein's, but in the eyes of feminists (or at least according to their claims), he is a male-chauvinist pig, and ditto for Dick Feynman. So which kinds of lives are worthy of emulation? It is a matter of our inner choices: It is those persons who we wish to conceive of as role models and idols to immitate that we take their lives, in spite all of their hardships, as lives worthy of emulation. This is the subjective sense of such a rule. But the objective sense is also important: Persons who have lived for such ideals, as Socrates and Jesus and Emerson are persons who championed and lived by universal moral ideals, and these ideals: The quest for truth, for goodness, for beauty, are universally admired. The life worth living is both subjectively (real life details and accomplishments), and objectively (exemplification of universal ideals) compelling for us to emulate their lives. We see echoes of this both in Nietzsche, in the man who against eternal suffering and hardships still chooses to live, and in Camus, in the man who chooses to deem his life good and worthy no matter the circumstances; supreme optimism in the face of ruthless perpetual mediocrity and tire.
(5) Finally, once knowledge of good is inspected and known, how to achieve such goodness. Here, Aristotle points at habit and its use to instill in ourselves good actions. For actions differ from intentions. We can all intend to be good men, as Adam Smith reminds us in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, but the good man is benificent; he acts on his intentions. And that is the cornerstone of moral value: To train ourselves on virtue, to punish and reward ourselves; really, to condition ourselves to attain a state of good behaviour. To make good conduct a habit so as to reach happiness. And of course, we know that habits are very hard to acquire and maintain, but one has to also put in his mind the necessity to make allowance for all these things. To know what is good, and then to try to make it a habit.
And in these five essential doctrines, I hope to have summarized well Aristotle's ethics.
Aristotle's moral philosophy consists of five parts. I shall address each. First of all, Aristotle might be the last person on Earth we would call traditional. But his philosophy is extremely traditional in the philosophical sense. His ethics and moral philosophy is targeted towards the common man. And in his writings, he aims to help us live better life, and does not go into long asides trying to make allowance for extreme conditions (the ethics for the times of war, how can a severely crippled man be happy, can brain-dead human beings be moral, etc).
The five most important ideas in Aristotle's ethics are: (1) To be moral (happy, here), one has to pursue what is good, and avoid what is evil; (2) The ultimate benevolent act is thought; (3) Virtue is a means between extremes; (4) The good life is a life worthy of emulation; (5) Exercise is the only path to human excellence. Let us uncouple those ideas.
(1) As Socrates reminds us, someone who pursues evil will be punished first and foremost by his conscience, while someone who does good will receive gratification from his own sense of virtue-achievement. But here, Aristotle differs from Socrates in that Socrates conflates virtue with knowledge: Every wrong is done out of ignorance, but not every good is done out of knowledge. We realize in Socrates that knowledge is necessary for a consistent morality. Aristotle agrees with the second clause, emphasizing that often, doing good without knowledge isn't necessarily a virtuous action (e.g. suppose I shove you out of resentment but shoving you pushes you away from a speeding bike). But Aristotle does not share with Socrates the belief in the first clause: Someone might act malevolently with knowledge of the error of his actions and to claim that it is because he doesn't truly understand what will make him happy will ultimately undermine all our moral actions since we cannot know of the path to our ultimate happiness. That kind of knowledge is remote and not always accessible to us.
(2) Then how can we know of what's good and what's bad so as to pursue it? By thought, and by thought alone. Thinking, especially if we habitualize it, and if it was critical and informed, is the only way to knowledge. Aristotle here also differs with Platonic dialogue that all knowledge can be accessed through thought. He believes that empirical sensory knowledge is essential to our understanding of the world. This claim is metaphysical as well as Plato's claim. Thinking alone, without experience, can only go so far into the world, and therefore empiricism is necessary. One has to venture into the world and try new things to understand the underlying mechanisms of the world. Thought is the ultimate pathway to benevolence because, as we previously explained, without really understanding why any action is good or bad, it is not possible to consistently be good. One has to think about all things to understand whether they will bring about his happiness or not. Impulsive action will not be enough, and nor is over-contemplation.
(3) We all know that water is necessary for life. But to drink 9 gallons of water a day is definitely not safe. There is a golden mean. Not drinking water (complete dehydration) and drinking too much water (water intoxication) are both lethal, and the mean (around half to one gallon per day) is the golden mean. The same goes for all behaviours. Sometimes, a kid might not know of the dangers of handling snakes -- such a kid is not courageous, but foolhardy. A strong and capable man who sees his friends being attacked without doing anything even though he is able to help and wanting to help is also not courageous, but cowardly. The mean is bravery in courage: To know exactly the dangers of any such actions, and to act when appropriate and after careful considerations. And similarly for the rest of behaviours. This is a computational and analytic approach to ethics in his Eudemian Ethics that all actions can fall into. Of course, it is fallacious to bring any extreme to the mean, and Aristotle points out the case of adultery: Adultery is the mean to which two extremes? Adultery itself is an extreme, and that's a class of problems that one has to be wary of when analysing the ethics of any action.
(4) The good life is a life worthy of emulation. That is at the core of Aristotle's definition of well-being. But who assesses which life is worthy of emulation? Is it society, or peers? Aristotle believes in the relative rationality of the persons in society, but that question is deeply subjective, and in one sense objective. It is subjective in the sense that to us, not all lives are worthy of emulation. To many scholars, Karl Marx is the ultimate social academic, mixing scholarly work with activism to bring about the change to the world that is within his theories. But as opposed to literature professors and sociologists, many philosophers and economists recognize Marx as a fraud. So is his life worth living? Similarly, most physicists would want such an astonishing career as Albert Einstein's, but in the eyes of feminists (or at least according to their claims), he is a male-chauvinist pig, and ditto for Dick Feynman. So which kinds of lives are worthy of emulation? It is a matter of our inner choices: It is those persons who we wish to conceive of as role models and idols to immitate that we take their lives, in spite all of their hardships, as lives worthy of emulation. This is the subjective sense of such a rule. But the objective sense is also important: Persons who have lived for such ideals, as Socrates and Jesus and Emerson are persons who championed and lived by universal moral ideals, and these ideals: The quest for truth, for goodness, for beauty, are universally admired. The life worth living is both subjectively (real life details and accomplishments), and objectively (exemplification of universal ideals) compelling for us to emulate their lives. We see echoes of this both in Nietzsche, in the man who against eternal suffering and hardships still chooses to live, and in Camus, in the man who chooses to deem his life good and worthy no matter the circumstances; supreme optimism in the face of ruthless perpetual mediocrity and tire.
(5) Finally, once knowledge of good is inspected and known, how to achieve such goodness. Here, Aristotle points at habit and its use to instill in ourselves good actions. For actions differ from intentions. We can all intend to be good men, as Adam Smith reminds us in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, but the good man is benificent; he acts on his intentions. And that is the cornerstone of moral value: To train ourselves on virtue, to punish and reward ourselves; really, to condition ourselves to attain a state of good behaviour. To make good conduct a habit so as to reach happiness. And of course, we know that habits are very hard to acquire and maintain, but one has to also put in his mind the necessity to make allowance for all these things. To know what is good, and then to try to make it a habit.
And in these five essential doctrines, I hope to have summarized well Aristotle's ethics.
May 9, 2023
Overall I enjoyed this lecture series as a good overview of the ethics. The lecturer moved chronologically through each ‘book’ in the treatise and gives an overview of the contents. He then has a lecture to help pull it all together as a cohesive work. I prefer this structured type of review so that one can follow along in the text very naturally, as opposed to other summaries I have read on similar subjects that break out the takeaways into concepts they want to cover, which may lead to jumping around in the text too much. He seems very knowledgeable and well read and gives many easy to understand modern examples for understanding the ethics. I personally really enjoyed the discussion on the books on friendship, as that is the one area I was probably least familiar with in the Ethics.
A few things that make it 4 stars and not 5 for me: Although the author does highlight specific sections in the book that he is talking about frequently, I would have liked more direct references or quoting from the text at times. I appreciated the comparisons to other ethics and philosophers, and I wish there was a bit more of this, perhaps with more emphasis on how the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions differ, and how the ethics are built upon metaphysics to an extent. An example of where I don’t think the differences weren’t drawn out enough: I think there would be confusion for someone not familiar with philosophy in his various discussions on Thomas Aquinas (Aristotelian) and Augustine (Platonist). Both are mentioned when making comparisons to Aristotle and I think if I didn’t know more, I would have thought Augustine was an Aristotle disciple similar to Aquinas. I was also not familiar with many of the modern thinkers he mentioned, so those comparisons, while fine and one could definitely learn from them, didn’t really bring much to the table for me as more discussion on someone like Kant would have.
A few things that make it 4 stars and not 5 for me: Although the author does highlight specific sections in the book that he is talking about frequently, I would have liked more direct references or quoting from the text at times. I appreciated the comparisons to other ethics and philosophers, and I wish there was a bit more of this, perhaps with more emphasis on how the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions differ, and how the ethics are built upon metaphysics to an extent. An example of where I don’t think the differences weren’t drawn out enough: I think there would be confusion for someone not familiar with philosophy in his various discussions on Thomas Aquinas (Aristotelian) and Augustine (Platonist). Both are mentioned when making comparisons to Aristotle and I think if I didn’t know more, I would have thought Augustine was an Aristotle disciple similar to Aquinas. I was also not familiar with many of the modern thinkers he mentioned, so those comparisons, while fine and one could definitely learn from them, didn’t really bring much to the table for me as more discussion on someone like Kant would have.
November 8, 2023
Easily explained practical advice for the open-minded person wanting to become virtuous, these lectures essentially discuss The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, ‘the philosopher of common sense’. It doesn’t have all of life’s answers but provides a logical toolkit that will allow you to not only make valuable contributions to discussions on ethics but perhaps more importantly, to question your own decisions and habits. This is an important stop on your philosophical journey.
The course is led by Professor Joseph Koterski, a former philosophy professor and Jesuit priest who I was saddened to discover passed away last year. This is similar to the now deceased lecturer of legendary status Professor Garret G. Fagan, contributor to many in the Great Courses series. Listening to the words of a person who no longer exists is an eerie experience and a real memento mori.
In the lectures, Professor Joseph Koterski draws from his own life experiences and links the subject matter to related philosophies in an attempt to reinforce Aristotle’s ideas to students. For the most part Koterski is successful but overuses religious figures, especially Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.
For the most part, the 30-minute lectures are well-structured and fairly easy to absorb. Later lectures, especially the last two, feel a little disjointed as previously taught ideas are reinforced and the material starts to focus more on only loosely related material with topics such as the Unmoved Mover or Natural Law Theory.
The course is led by Professor Joseph Koterski, a former philosophy professor and Jesuit priest who I was saddened to discover passed away last year. This is similar to the now deceased lecturer of legendary status Professor Garret G. Fagan, contributor to many in the Great Courses series. Listening to the words of a person who no longer exists is an eerie experience and a real memento mori.
In the lectures, Professor Joseph Koterski draws from his own life experiences and links the subject matter to related philosophies in an attempt to reinforce Aristotle’s ideas to students. For the most part Koterski is successful but overuses religious figures, especially Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.
For the most part, the 30-minute lectures are well-structured and fairly easy to absorb. Later lectures, especially the last two, feel a little disjointed as previously taught ideas are reinforced and the material starts to focus more on only loosely related material with topics such as the Unmoved Mover or Natural Law Theory.
January 9, 2021
This was disappointing. Much of it felt like a sermon series on how we should act and respond to Aristotle's ideas, which is inappropriate for a Great Courses series. Father Kosterski seemed unable to describe Aristotle's ideas without comparing and contrasting them to his own about God, creation and sin, which is, again, not appropriate in a Great Courses series. He often told personal stories or described other authors and thinkers in order to exapnd on his personal values. I wanted to learn about Aristotle.
I didn't particularly enjoy his patronising voice either, which is probably personal taste, but that's my personal taste.
I didn't particularly enjoy his patronising voice either, which is probably personal taste, but that's my personal taste.
November 21, 2017
Its nice to know that Aristotle had such views.
Nice book..made me re-think on many aspects in my life!
Nice book..made me re-think on many aspects in my life!
May 28, 2018
Great overview
April 4, 2022
Only medium.
February 15, 2025
Review for The Ethics of Aristotle by Joseph W. Koterski:
The Ethics of Aristotle by Joseph W. Koterski is a well-crafted introduction to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, one of the most influential works in Western philosophy. In this book, Koterski aims to bring clarity to Aristotle’s ethical teachings and his exploration of what it means to live a good life.
The central questions addressed in the work—what is happiness, what is moral excellence, and how one can attain them—are timeless and resonate with readers across eras. Aristotle’s ethics emphasize virtue and the development of good character as the path to happiness, advocating for a life that is in accordance with reason and moderation. Koterski takes the reader step by step through Aristotle’s arguments, making complex ideas more accessible without oversimplifying them.
Koterski’s writing is clear, direct, and thoughtful, making this book an excellent entry point for those unfamiliar with Aristotle or those looking to revisit his ethical philosophy. His insights into Aristotle’s approach to moral and intellectual virtues, as well as his views on the role of emotions and desires in our pursuit of happiness, provide a robust understanding of Aristotelian ethics.
The work is philosophical but also practical, offering actionable ideas on how to live well in accordance with reason. If you’re looking to understand Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics or want to engage with questions of ethics and morality in a more profound way, this is a recommended read.
Key Themes and Insights:
• Happiness and Eudaimonia: Aristotle’s concept of happiness is closely tied to the idea of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is achieved through the development of virtue.
• Virtue Ethics: The importance of cultivating virtues like courage, temperance, and wisdom is central to Aristotle’s philosophy.
• The Doctrine of the Mean: Aristotle teaches that virtue lies in the balance between excess and deficiency.
• Moral and Intellectual Virtues: Aristotle distinguishes between virtues of character and virtues of intellect, both of which are necessary for a flourishing life.
• Practical Application: Aristotle’s ethics are not just theoretical but are meant to be applied in daily life, emphasizing habits and choices that align with reason.
Final Verdict:
A clear and insightful introduction to Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in the foundations of moral philosophy and the pursuit of a virtuous, meaningful life.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆ (4/5) — A great introduction, though some may wish for deeper exploration of more advanced topics in Aristotle’s work.
The Ethics of Aristotle by Joseph W. Koterski is a well-crafted introduction to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, one of the most influential works in Western philosophy. In this book, Koterski aims to bring clarity to Aristotle’s ethical teachings and his exploration of what it means to live a good life.
The central questions addressed in the work—what is happiness, what is moral excellence, and how one can attain them—are timeless and resonate with readers across eras. Aristotle’s ethics emphasize virtue and the development of good character as the path to happiness, advocating for a life that is in accordance with reason and moderation. Koterski takes the reader step by step through Aristotle’s arguments, making complex ideas more accessible without oversimplifying them.
Koterski’s writing is clear, direct, and thoughtful, making this book an excellent entry point for those unfamiliar with Aristotle or those looking to revisit his ethical philosophy. His insights into Aristotle’s approach to moral and intellectual virtues, as well as his views on the role of emotions and desires in our pursuit of happiness, provide a robust understanding of Aristotelian ethics.
The work is philosophical but also practical, offering actionable ideas on how to live well in accordance with reason. If you’re looking to understand Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics or want to engage with questions of ethics and morality in a more profound way, this is a recommended read.
Key Themes and Insights:
• Happiness and Eudaimonia: Aristotle’s concept of happiness is closely tied to the idea of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is achieved through the development of virtue.
• Virtue Ethics: The importance of cultivating virtues like courage, temperance, and wisdom is central to Aristotle’s philosophy.
• The Doctrine of the Mean: Aristotle teaches that virtue lies in the balance between excess and deficiency.
• Moral and Intellectual Virtues: Aristotle distinguishes between virtues of character and virtues of intellect, both of which are necessary for a flourishing life.
• Practical Application: Aristotle’s ethics are not just theoretical but are meant to be applied in daily life, emphasizing habits and choices that align with reason.
Final Verdict:
A clear and insightful introduction to Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in the foundations of moral philosophy and the pursuit of a virtuous, meaningful life.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆ (4/5) — A great introduction, though some may wish for deeper exploration of more advanced topics in Aristotle’s work.
December 1, 2023
In 2001 The Teaching Company Great Courses released Fordham University Chair of Philosophy Fr Joseph Koterski, SJ’s excellent course “The Ethics of Aristotle.” The twelve lecture course discusses Aristotles’s 350 BC famous book “Nicomachean Ethics.” This Aristotelean book is a major component of modern day university curriculums for exploring the foundation of ethical principles that underpin the components of common sense, the purpose of human life, and the teachings of moral excellence. The course also covers principles of social moderation, human virtues, justice, and the daily struggles to “do right.” His concluding lectures discuss the importance of friendships, and human pleasure derived from living “the right life. The course’s last lecture feature Aristotle’s core beliefs about human attainment of happiness in the natural and spiritual order of existence. Fr Koterski’s insights and presentation style are truly amazing. (p)
June 26, 2022
I certainly would have gotten more out of this if I'd taken it as a course, and actually been forced to study and meditate upon the premises. Most of the takeaways that I was able to glean from a surface listening while multitasking seemed fairly obvious Yet the way the professor presented Aristotle's ideas on each given subject seemed to remove all "woolliness" from the subjects, which I guess is exactly what philosophy is meant to do. I particularly found the lectures on the nature of friendship and different kinds of friends to be interesting.
April 25, 2025
Listened to The Ethics of Aristotle by The Great Courses while road-tripping across the United States. The series offers a clear, accessible entry point into Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, effectively breaking down complex ideas for a general audience. However, some of the real-world examples felt superficial or inaccurate, occasionally diluting the depth of Aristotle’s original insights. A worthwhile listen for newcomers, but those seeking deeper engagement may find it somewhat elementary.
August 23, 2025
A solid overview, coupled with various other perspectives. It appears that there is also a fairly subtle religious bias that seems to seep in. The course was much easier to cover than Aristotle's nichomachean ethics, yet the simplification comes at the price to understanding. For most this approach is likely a much better fit, than reading the source. If one has the time and inclination, they are a very nice pairing.
January 17, 2018
Mostly used to refresh my memory on a book I'd read a dozen years ago. I'd say the course was "meh," neither hot nor cold. There were points where I felt the lecturer's Christian faith colored his presentation somewhat. But all in all it was a decent presentation that gives you a broad view of Aristotle's book.
December 15, 2021
Read most of it for my thesis. Lots to reflect on, and very effective if it's applied practicality. Phronesis is the first step to Eudaimonia, and probably the hardest step requiring a lot of self-reflection and objective assessment of one's behavior.
4/5 stars
4/5 stars
June 15, 2024
Professor was very knowledgable, engaging, and I learned a ton. Also appreciated all the book references and how they tied in (not that I needed by tbr to expand). Lectures are detailed without being overwhelming and Aristotle's lessons are elucidated well.
August 16, 2017
Close to my definition of friendship and love. Everything else is alright but I don't connect as strongly. And I disagree with some of it also.
July 7, 2018
One nice review of a great book!
March 26, 2019
Excellent explanation, context, and connections pertaining to Aristotle's Ethics (read together).
January 3, 2020
It was dry sometimes, but overall I found the ideas explored to be very interesting! I know very little about Aristotle to begin with and definitely learned a lot in the end.
August 13, 2020
An excellent, engaging overview of the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle.
April 27, 2021
A general overview and survey of all the books of Aristotle's ethics. Time to read the books in detail.
January 22, 2024
Thought provoking
May 6, 2024
I started working through Ethics but decided I needed I guide.
Although Father Kayerski passed in 2021, his teaching lives on. Quite helpful.
B. Grizenko
Age 12+
Although Father Kayerski passed in 2021, his teaching lives on. Quite helpful.
B. Grizenko
Age 12+
June 8, 2025
Father Joseph Koterski S.J. writes a brilliant book, thoroughly enjoyable erudition thank you Father Koterski, very much appreciated :-)
November 15, 2025
Had trouble listening to this one.
September 19, 2009
Father Koterski lays out Aristotle's Ethics in a reasonable and compelling way. Aristole says we seek the good which is some form of happiness, but makes it clear that "good" is more than immediate pleasure. Happiness is living a life of virtue, which is generally using reason to regulate our passions so that we aim (depending on circumstance) for the mean (virtue) and avoid extremes (vice). In this view, Aristotle doesn't negate the passions, but promotes a viewpoint that places them under the control of reason. All of this is good enough. Yet in this presentation, Aristotle creates a walking rationalist who is in perfect control of what goes on inside, making the right decision in the right way at the right time. Such internal harmony (and control) manifests itself as well in civil society (the Politics) where the rational controls the irrational. Civil harmony will occur if reasonable men (living a life of virtue) are given the controls. Aristotle gives too much credit to reason and too much confidence that rational man can or will set aside subjective pursuit at the expense of the whole. Harmony is not the result of pleas for men to be reasonable, but through conditions of equality that allow for countervailing power to keep such extreme behavior in check. Aristole sees the connection between justice and equality (which is a mean), but does not develop its implications: In the end, it's power that checks excessive behavior, not pleas to be reasonable and virtuous.
January 19, 2014
In this audio download version (at a bargain price), Fr Koterski reintroduced me to some of the fundamentals and mechanisms of thought and contemplation (often referred to as 'common sense') that help to clarify what it means to be happy. Is being happy the same as finding happiness in life? Can a person be happy without moral virtues (ethics)? As with all Philosophy, the questions are often more important than the answers.
For Aristotle, happiness is the goal of human life because it is an end that is self-sufficient and desirable in itself. It consists in a life of virtue, provided that certain material conditions are present as necessary minimal conditions, including health, enough wealth to live independently and not to have to scratch out one’s survival, and a good reputation. But maybe true happiness (eudaimonia...a truly wonderful word) lies more in the pursuit rather than the realization...after all, how do you ever know 'you're there'? The satisfaction of knowing that you are living a life that is morally good, pleasurable and fulfilling might be the real meaning of happiness.
My final take-away is from the final lecture (Lecture 12) in which Fr Koterski states:"Actions have their consequences and we have to take responsibility for them by cultivating (good) habits of personal choice. Such cultivation will, in itself, provide the happiness that is the ultimate goal of our lives."
I found the course to be a stimulating introduction to Aristotle that will need to be revisited...some of the habits sink in more slowly than others.
For Aristotle, happiness is the goal of human life because it is an end that is self-sufficient and desirable in itself. It consists in a life of virtue, provided that certain material conditions are present as necessary minimal conditions, including health, enough wealth to live independently and not to have to scratch out one’s survival, and a good reputation. But maybe true happiness (eudaimonia...a truly wonderful word) lies more in the pursuit rather than the realization...after all, how do you ever know 'you're there'? The satisfaction of knowing that you are living a life that is morally good, pleasurable and fulfilling might be the real meaning of happiness.
My final take-away is from the final lecture (Lecture 12) in which Fr Koterski states:"Actions have their consequences and we have to take responsibility for them by cultivating (good) habits of personal choice. Such cultivation will, in itself, provide the happiness that is the ultimate goal of our lives."
I found the course to be a stimulating introduction to Aristotle that will need to be revisited...some of the habits sink in more slowly than others.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews