Aristotelian Account Of Blameworthiness

Section I : Ethics Ð'- Provide an Aristotelian account of blameworthiness and If such an account of blameworthiness were to become the basis of our criminal justice system, how might it affect our system of criminal punishment

Aristotle's view of blameworthiness differs fundamentally from contemporary concepts of blameworthiness as practiced by our criminal justice system today. While much of today's legal system is base on a retributive type of justice, in which people are charged with a specific crime, tried in a courtroom and either found innocent and released or found guilty and punished, Aristotle's views also takes into account the nature of the person in question, whether they are virtuous persons or persons of vice. A little background information on Aristotle is necessary to understand how he arrives at his view of blameworthiness, so we will touch a little bit on his teachings of what composes a good life, how virtues figures into it and then delve into some of the merits and problems of Aristotelian blame.

The Good Virtuous Life

Aristotle felt that in order to live Ð''a good life' (eudaemonia Ð'- well being, contentment, happiness), one needs to exercise one's rational faculties well and to avoid misfortune. To clarify, Aristotle felt that we have to live in a good, rational, reasoned way and that this was a key component of giving our lives value and happiness. (Nichomachean Ethics book I, 7) He felt that this excellence focused, rational quality is unique to man in a sense that there is no animal that approaches mans ability to think and reason things out, it is one of our defining characters. But just living a good rational way is in itself not enough. As brought out in our classroom lecture, one can be a rational, skilled thief or murderer who evades misfortune but his life would not be considered a good, worthy life. This leads us to a second intrinsic quality that is necessary to live a good life and that quality is virtue, having a life guided by virtuous qualities/character traits.

In his second book on Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle delves into virtue, defining its' various components. He felt that there's such a thing called moral virtue or moral excellence which includes such qualities as courage, mildness, charity, and so on. In any given situation, the virtuous person would display the correct virtue at the appropriate amount which would be governed by something Aristotle called the doctrine of the mean. This was basically a middle ground approach between two extreme (defective) character traits. (Nichomachean Ethics book II, 8) The virtuous person would show courage instead of cowardice or rashness, modesty instead of timidity or arrogance and so on. And this moral character wouldn't be an isolated episode but rather would have constancy in a person's life. The moral virtuous person would be virtuous steadily, not irregularly. Overall, the virtuous person would behave this way because he knows it was the right way to act, he wants to live this way and so he cultivates virtue in his life. All this contributes to a person being able to live Ð''a good life'. This brief synopsis of the Aristotelian way of life helps us to understand his views of guilt and how blame fits in.

Blameworthiness

As was mentioned before, we have a retributive form of justice in this country (USA). Our criminal justice system focuses in on the particular act or crime, did you do it?, was it by choice or duress?, was it inadvertent accident or deliberate?; based on these questions and established law, a jury or judge will pronounce you innocent and released or guilty with some punishment involved, possibly incarceration. This system of justice doesn't really focus that much on whether you are a virtuous or non-virtuous person, the focus is on whether you are guilt or innocent for a particular act or crime. If you are guilty of a crime, you are punished; you have to pay back your debt to society.

In Aristotle's system, the act or crime is important but also important is the nature of the person committing the crime. People are blamed for lacking virtue as well; for having a vice or a vicious character because it shows a defective character trait that led to committing the more serious act. You failed to live up to the ideal Ð''good life' full of virtue. Of course, your level of blame depends on the severity of the act and the severity of the defective character trait. The following passage illustrates this point:

"Ð'...for we too sometimes praise those who fall short and call them good-tempered, but sometimes we praise those who get angry, and call them manly. The man, however, who deviates little from goodness is not blamed, whether he do so in the direction of the more or of the less, but only the man who deviates more widely; for he does not fail to be noticed. But up to what point and to what extent a man must deviate before he becomes blameworthy is not easy to determine by reasoning, any more than anything else that is perceived by the senses; such things depend on particular facts, and the decision rests with perception." (Nichomachean Ethics book II, 9)

In Aristotle's society, when a man commits a egregious act and it is determined that he had a bad character trait, such a person is ostracized (shunned), you are banished for a period of time until you can correct your defective character and prove that you have changed. On the other hand, if someone had an uncharacteristic slip toward a bad act, it wouldn't necessarily count against him if he was virtuous overall. One can imagine the drastic effects a character based system of justice would have on criminals and what is considered