UN ALEGATO EN CONTRA DE LAS INTERPRETACIONES DETERMINISTAS DE LA éTICA ARISTOTéLICA

this article tries to show the reasons why aristotle's ethics cannot be considered deterministic. hence, it critiques the arguments of three scholars: alfredo gómez-muller, theodor gomperz and d.j. furley, with the aim of showing that aristotelian ethics are not grounded in matters of necessity but rather in matters of agreement, and that the human character is not fully determined by nature and that once it has been formed aristotle does conceive of the possibility of further change, although such a change requires more than intentions. thus, this analysis tries to show, beyond the particular counterarguments to the scholars, that aristotelian ethics explain the human world in its complexity and richness and therefore cannot be considered as deterministic.