Difference Between Kant And Aristotle

Philosophers Immanuel Kant and Aristotle have presented different accounts of what it means to be morally virtuous. Kant believes that inclination or desire is irrelevant to moral virtue, however, Aristotle believes that they are relevant to each other. I will argue that Kant presents the more convincing account of moral virtue.
There are three philanthropist cases that can be critiqued according to Kant and Aristotle. The first case involves a happy philanthropist who donates money to a cause and spreads joy around her. From doing these actions, she is receiving publicity and an increased social reputation, which is leading to her happiness. The second case is about a dutiful, yet cold philanthropist who has no sympathy in her heart. She doesn’t care about the people around her but gives to them anyway and does not receive pleasure or happiness from these actions. The third case involves a happy, dutiful philanthropist. He donates to others because he feels it is the right thing to do, and receives pleasure from it. He does not receive publicity or social reputation but finds happiness in purely helping others.
Kant’s teachings focus on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, and he

The first part is the Non-Rational part, which takes care of things like breathing or growing and cannot be controlled by reason. The second part is the Quasi-Rational part, which has to do with inclination or desires and can align with the Rational Part or reason. When it does align, virtue of character, or eudamonia, is achieved. The final part is the Rational part, which is the site of intellectual virtue because it does the thinking and reasoning. Therefore, according to Aristotle, in order to become virtuous one must become habituated with virtuous actions and must educate their inclinations to align with