This study aims to provide a classical reinterpretation of the concept of Hamartia in relation to ethical entitlement within Aristotle’s thought. Hamartia, which plays an indispensable role in the realization of Aristotelian tragedy, has gradually drifted away from its original meaning and has often been interpreted as a form of “moral lapse” or “sin.” The historical investigation reveals that the root of this deviation lies in Islamic philosophy—particularly in Avicenna—who, by employing the concept of zalal (error or slip) as the equivalent of Hamartia, introduced an ethical–juridical reading of the tragic fault. This approach was consolidated during the Middle Ages and continued into the Renaissance through interpreters such as Castelvetro.

Conversely, commentators such as Robortello, Sperone, and Minturno sought to revive the cognitive and human dimension of Hamartia—an effort that, in the modern era, has been renewed by scholars such as Stinton, Golden, Kim, Vinje, and Sackey, leading once again to the dominance of the cognitive interpretation over the ethical one. However, most of these studies have overlooked the connection between Hamartia and the notion of ethical entitlement.

To reconstruct Aristotle’s original meaning with interpretive precision, several fundamental presuppositions must be accepted: the internal coherence of texts, the consistency of the philosopher’s thought, the stability of the interpreter’s standpoint, and the assumption of uncorrupted and unified meaning. Based on these premises, a conceptual analysis of the Poetics and the Nicomachean Ethics shows that the tragic error arises from ignorance of the particulars of action—an error that becomes truly involuntary only when accompanied by subsequent remorse. Hence, the audience’s compassion and, ultimately, catharsis, the telos of the Aristotelian tragic system, emerge under these conditions.

Accordingly, Hamartia should be understood as a “cognitive error under necessity,” a form of constrained ignorance that gives rise to tragedy and catharsis. This reading, while remaining faithful to the spirit of Aristotle’s thought, rearticulates the relation between tragedy, choice, and ethical responsibility in a renewed philosophical horizon.