The philosophers Kant and Aristotle both have their own theories on the source of virtuous action. Aristotle believes that the moral worth of an action lies in the agent's intent whereas Kant believes that if one's will is determined by inclination, neither does that individual have a good will nor does the action have any moral worth. Thus, in order for an action to have moral worth, according to Kant, one's will must be determined by categorical imperatives. Once this condition is satisfied, that person can be said to have a good will and the resulting action can potentially have moral worth. Kant and Aristotle's theories on the source of virtuous actions are highly similar as they both believe that intent is a crucial component of virtuous …show more content…
Rather, when an individual consistently strikes the mean for a particular virtue, then that person can be said to have attained the particular virtue. For instance, when one is feeling anger, choosing not to respond with it demonstrates that an individual is trying to exercise self-control and if this individual continues to consistently refrain from acting upon that emotion, then eventually the individual will attain the virtue of good temper. Evidently, Kant and Aristotle differ in their theories regarding the source of virtuous action as Kant claims that a virtuous action must be done from duty and Aristotle believes that a virtuous action is done for its own sake and done in a conscious manner. Moreover, one of the key similarities between Kant and Aristotle's theories about the source of virtuous action is the importance of the agent's intent. According to Kant, ego cannot be the primary source of motivation for a virtuous act. In fact, he believes that it is merely impossible to tell whether or not an individual's act is in fact done from duty for an outsider by simply looking at the consequences of the act. This is due to the …show more content…
Kant argues that as long as there is no excess of pleasure involved in the completion of an action and it remains clear that the action is done from duty, then pleasure can be involved in the completion of a virtuous action. Similarly, Aristotle believes that pleasure can be involved in the completion of virtuous actions; however, he claims that it can be the sole motivator of an action, whereas for Kant this is simply not true. Furthermore, Kant claims that even if the action is from duty the agent's intent must be determined by the categorical imperative rather than by inclination, otherwise the individual does not have a good will and the action does not consist of any moral worth. Both Kant and Aristotle argue that the intent of an action is critical in determining whether an action is truly virtuous or not as it is not possible for an outsider to determine an individual's underlying motive for an action. It may seem that Kant and Aristotle's theories regarding the source of virtuous actions greatly differ from one another at first glance, but upon further examination it becomes evident that there are more similarities than there are differences between the theories of these two philosophers on the source of virtuous
Aristotle’s virtuous person and Kant’s moral worth have two different meanings. Kant and Aristotle, from different times, have different ways of looking at what makes people make the best decisions. Coming from different sides of ethics in Deontology and virtue ethics, they agree and disagree with each other as most other schools of ethical thought do as well. After stating both their positions, I will prove that Kant’s view of morality is more correct than Aristotle’s view of the person.
Another motive for action is when something is done in accordance to duty, and actually wants to do it – this is also called immediate inclination. An example of this principle would be a man who is happily married. However, at the office, there is an attractive new intern that constantly hits on him. He does find the intern to be physically attractive but does not actually desire to be with her. He reflects that he could indeed have an affair with this intern if he wanted to but he wont in a million years because he is extremely happy with his wife. He wouldn’t risk that relationship for a chance at a fling. According to Kant, this would not have moral worth because it comes from immediate inclination, not from the motive of duty.
Kant states that moral worth is the value of a good will in dutiful action. Dutiful actions done “from duty” have moral worth while dutiful actions that are merely “according to duty” have no moral
Klagge, JC 1989, Virtue: Aristotle or Kant? Virginia Tech Department of Philosophy, Web version accessed 14 May 2014.
In order to see whether this action is good or not, with Kant theory tends to look into the moral or the reason or intention behind an action rather than its consequences. It also can be said that the motive of an action is a key point to judge whether this action is good or bad. In order to act right Kant made a composite law of reason to do with 3 separate parts which is Universalisable, Respect, and Autonomy.
As time passes ideology and government change, for the better or worse. Kant, Marx, and Hobbes all lived in a different world with their own set of set of difficulties and opinions. I believe none of them are truly correct in their ideas of humanity and government, and by understand their beliefs in relation to the time period we can better understand all of their works while at the same time formulate our own perspective on the issue.
Hume’s ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the capability of reason.
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
This is quite difficult. What is more, the less extreme case, in which there is no conflict between moral requirement and what is one’s projects, is not less difficult. That is, even if there were no conflict, the agent would still have to conceptual from her projects and assume a neutral observation of the situation. With the central role that is attributed to individual’s commitments, Kant’s moral theory can be deemed objectionable. That one’s attachment to a person may influence his or her moral reaction when need arise differently than when it is a case of an individual who has no attachment to any of the person’s that should lend a helping hand. This may seem convincing enough to object Kant’s theory and stand on
Kant believes the value of actions cannot come from their consequences because we do not know whether the outcome will be bad or good. If we are doing an action for the good, it shouldn’t matter whether or not the end was good too. If you try to save a drowning kid, you might get there too late, but you still tried your best to do so. The motivation for the action is important to distinguish between the good and bad.
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
The virtues defined by Aristotle consist of two extremes or vices, the excess and the deficiency. The mean or the intermediate between the excess and the deficiency is the virtue. One virtue Aristotle explains is bravery, with its vices being rashness and cowardice. Each aspect of these is contrary to the others, meaning that the intermediate opposes the extreme. Similarly, one extreme opposes the mean and its other extreme. The implications of this are that the excess opposes the deficiency more than the mean. This causes the mean to sometimes resemble its neighboring extreme. Obtaining the mean involves the challenge of being excellent. The challenging part, however, is “doing it to the right person, in the right amount, at the right time, for the right end, and in the right way” (Nicomachean Ethics 1109a28-29:29). Fortunately, one can steer themselves to the mean if one is conscious of the extreme they are naturally inclined to go towards. Since everybody is uniquely different the means by which one steers themselves in the right direction is different for each individual. In addition, Aristotle names three requirements for an action to be a virtue. First one must be cons...
Aristotle believes that right and wrong decisions exist, while according to Hume, judging someone is basically impossible because humans make decisions based on their passions, and one cannot judge someone else based off their passions. All human actions aim at some good according to Aristotle, but finding the mean in all actions is nearly impossible. When one finds the mean in all things and is aware of their quality, then Aristotle believes one has achieved happiness or supreme good. Instead of a supreme good, Hume believes that passions a fall subordinate to one 's will. For example, if one has a passion to murder someone then they will decide to kill people. Hume’s views on decision making connect directly to his theory about judgement, because all human perceptions differ when it comes to all things, including murder. Both Aristotle and Hume believe that one can attain the quality of being a virtuous person, but what virtue means is different according to the two philosophers. Aristotle believes one is virtuous when they have found the mean in all things and have achieved the qualities of nobility and kindness. Hume also believes that kindness matters when deeming one virtuous or vile, but Hume does not believe one must find the mean in anything. Hume simply believes that one must be a benevolent person and have benevolent desires to be considered virtuous. Aristotle and Hume share clashing views about the same parts of morality, the two drastically differ in regards explaining judgement, reasoning, and how to be
The bases of Aristotle’s and Kant’s theories are different. Aristotle believes when you do something it comes from the virtues you have, while Kant believes there is always a reason behind actions. However, both agree “that time and practice is required to develop virtues” (betzler 50). Another thing they have in common is that both of them focused on peoples actions and why people performed those actions. Whether, it is happiness or good will we are all completing an action to the end; in order to have a good life.