This book deconstructs the story of liberalism that John Rawls, author of Political Liberalism, and many others have put forward. Peter L.P. Simpson argues that political liberalism is despotic because it denies to politics a concern with the comprehensive human good; political illiberalism overcomes this despotism and restores genuine freedom. In Political Illiberalism, Simpson provides a detailed account of these political phenomena and presents a political theory opposed to that of Rawls and other proponents of modern liberalism. Simpson analyses and confronts the assumptions of this liberalism by challenging its view of liberty and especially its cornerstone that politics should not be about the comprehensive good. He presents the fundamentals of the idea of a truer liberalism as derived from human nature, with particular attention to the role and power of religion, using the political thought of Aristotle, the founding fathers of the United States, thinkers of the Roman Empire, and contemporary practice. Political Illiberalism concludes with reflections on morals in the political context of the comprehensive good. Simpson views the modern state as despotically authoritarian; consequently, seeking liberty within it is illusory. Human politics requires devolution of authority to local communities, on the one hand, and a proper distinction between spiritual and temporal powers, on the other. This thought-provoking work is essential for all political scientists and philosophy scholars.

This book deconstructs the story of liberalism that John Rawls, author of Political Liberalism, and many others have put forward. Peter L.P. Simpson argues that political liberalism is despotic because it denies to politics a concern with the comprehensive human good; political illiberalism overcomes this despotism and restores genuine freedom. In Political Illiberalism, Simpson provides a detailed account of these political phenomena and presents a political theory opposed to that of Rawls and other proponents of modern liberalism. Simpson analyses and confronts the assumptions of this liberalism by challenging its view of liberty and especially its cornerstone that politics should not be about the comprehensive good. He presents the fundamentals of the idea of a truer liberalism as derived from human nature, with particular attention to the role and power of religion, using the political thought of Aristotle, the founding fathers of the United States, thinkers of the Roman Empire, and contemporary practice. Political Illiberalism concludes with reflections on morals in the political context of the comprehensive good. Simpson views the modern state as despotically authoritarian; consequently, seeking liberty within it is illusory. Human politics requires devolution of authority to local communities, on the one hand, and a proper distinction between spiritual and temporal powers, on the other. This thought-provoking work is essential for all political scientists and philosophy scholars.

Among the works on ethics in the Aristotelian corpus, there is no serious dispute among scholars that the Eudemian Ethics is authentic. The Eudemian Ethics is increasingly read and used by scholars as a useful support and confirmation and sometimes contrast to the Nicomachean Ethics. Yet, it remains a largely neglected work in the study of Aristotle's ethics, both among scholars and moral philosophers. Peter L. P. Simpson provides an analytical outline of the entire work together with summaries of each individual section, making the overall structure and detailed argument clear. His translation and explanatory notes include the common books that the Eudemian Ethics shares with the Nicomachean. This translation contains renderings of words and phrases, and proposals for emending the text that differ from what other translators and scholars have adopted. This translation is literal, without expansion or paraphrase, and yet also readable. A readable but literal translation is necessary because in the Eudemian Ethics, more than usual in Aristotle's writings, the logic of the argumentation can turn on the peculiar wording or order. Simpson explains the argumentation where necessary in notes and separate explanatory comments. This book is a fresh, twenty-first-century rendition of the work of one of the most eminent philosophers of all time.

In this follow up to The Eudemian Ethics of Aristotle, Peter L. P. Simpson centres his attention on the basics of Aristotelian moral doctrine as found in the Great Ethics: the definition of happiness, the nature and kind of the virtues, pleasure, and friendship. This work's authenticity is disputed, but Simpson argues that all the evidence favours it. Unlike the Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle wrote the Great Ethics for a popular audience. It gives us insight less into Aristotle the theoretician than into Aristotle the pedagogue. For this reason, the Great Ethics has distinct advantages as an introduction to Aristotelian ethical thinking: it is simpler and clearer in its argumentation, matters such as the intellectual virtues are made suitably secondary to the practical focus, the moral virtues come through with a pleasing directness, and the work's syllogistic formalism gives it a transparency and accessibility that the other Ethics typically lack. Arius' Epitome, which relies heavily on this work, helps confirm its value and authenticity. Because the Great Ethics is generally neglected by scholars, less has been done to clear up its obscurities or to expose its structure. But to ignore it is to lose another and more instructive way of approaching and appreciating Aristotle's teaching. The translation is prefaced by an analytic outline of the whole, and the several sections of it are prefaced by brief summaries. The commentary supplies fuller descriptions and analyses, sorting out puzzles, removing misunderstandings, and resolving doubts of meaning and intention. This book is a fresh rendition of the work of the preeminent philosopher of all time.

In this follow up to The Eudemian Ethics of Aristotle, Peter L. P. Simpson centers his attention on the basics of Aristotelian moral doctrine as found in the Great Ethics the definition of happiness, the nature and kind of the virtues, pleasure, and friendship. This work's authenticity is disputed, but Simpson argues that all the evidence favors it. Unlike the Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle wrote the Great Ethics for a popular audience. It gives us insight less into Aristotle the theoretician than into Aristotle the pedagogue.

For this reason, the Great Ethics has distinct advantages as an introduction to Aristotelian ethical thinking: it is simpler and clearer in its argumentation, matters such as the intellectual virtues are made suitably secondary to the practical focus, the moral virtues come through with a pleasing directness, and the work's syllogistic formalism gives it a transparency and accessibility that the other Ethics typically lack. Arius' Epitome, which relies heavily on this work, helps confirm its value and authenticity.

Because the Great Ethics is generally neglected by scholars, less has been done to clear up its obscurities or to expose its structure. But to ignore it is to lose another and more instructive way of approaching and appreciating Aristotle's teaching. The translation is prefaced by an analytic outline of the whole, and the several sections of it are prefaced by brief summaries. The commentary supplies fuller descriptions and analyses, sorting out puzzles, removing misunderstandings, and resolving doubts of meaning and intention. This book is a fresh rendition of the work of the preeminent philosopher of all time.

Vices, Virtues, and Consequences offers a broad study of the basic and universal issues in ethics and politics, the issues of what the human good is and how to attain it and avoid its opposite. These questions have long been debated and are no less debated today. However, according to author Peter Phillips Simpson, within the mainstream of Anglo-American modern philosophy they have been debated too narrowly. This narrowness is one of our modern vices, and it does much to encourage other vices, in particular that of despair of universal and objective reason. The essays in this collection not only attack these vices, but also attempt to replace them with the contrary virtues. The volume begins with an overview of modern Anglo-American moral philosophy and critiques the work of contemporary thinkers-specifically Alasdair MacIntyre and John Rawls-and the work of historical thinkers such as Machiavelli, Kant, and Hobbes. The author then explores ancient and medieval sources, and applies their concepts to discussions of modern problems. The book closes with chapters that discuss the direct consequences of contemporary vices in both thought and action, in particular the vice of failing to educate the morals of citizens. Simpson rejects the contemporary liberal dogma that political authority should not be involved in the moral education of citizens. Violence in Northern Ireland and the crime of abortion are among the issues discussed. Peter Phillips Simpson is professor of philosophy and classics at the Graduate Center and the College of Staten Island, City University of New York. He is the author of numerous articles and books including The Politics of Aristotle, A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle, and Karol Wojtyla.

This book is an attempt to recover and restate, in a fresh and relevant way, an ancient vision of the nature of moral theory and of the good life. It defends and elaborates a cognitivist or naturalist account of ethical terms, and a perfectionist account of the good as the noble. It does so in full awareness of the problems raised for such accounts by the still dominant twentieth century philosophical debate. Through a sustained critique of protagonists on both sides of this debate, a careful unraveling of the issues, and a tracing of origins in writers from Hobbes to Kant, the author shows how fertile ancient ideas can be in providing new insights. Facts and values, 'is' and 'ought', supervenience, teleology and science, freedom of choice, justice, friendship, and the good are some of the themes treated in this attempt at comprehensive ethical theorizing. A supplement at the end about historical origins gives a more detailed account of the modern writers from Machiavelli to Kant whose thought still marks and mars contemporary philosophical discussion.