Aristotle or Bernard Williams? Self, Suffering, and Moral Residue in James Baldwin and J.M. Coetzee

In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle explores the essential aspects of eudaimonia (the good life, happiness, living well, virtuous living) in terms firstly of the exercise of virtuous activity or virtue (courage, justice, magnanimity, patience, etc.) and secondly in relation to access to worldly goods (friends and family, prosperity, health, etc.).  The dialectical relation between virtue and worldly goods means that the good life is dependent on a careful balancing act between inside and outside, not all the terms of which are entirely within the control of the individual.  Furthermore, that happiness is a process and not a state and derives from an entire lifespan and not merely from its individual moments.  But Aristotle's ethical model leaves some prickly questions unanswered, such as: Are there conditions under which the virtues might seem to conflict or contradict one another?  And how about conditions in which a person has to make a choice between equally compelling options?  This last question is answered in part in Bernard Williams's discussion of moral inconsistency and moral dilemma.

 Professor Quayson's talk will illustrate the key concepts implied in Aristotle and Williams's different ethical accounts with reference to James Baldwin's short story "Sonny's Blues" and J.M. Coetzee's novel Waiting for the Barbarians.