To be good is good but it has to be done for the right reason. Aristotle and Kant are two famous philosophers who have different ethical theories. The theory’s of virtue and duties rest not only on laws and obligations but from what comes from the inside. Morality comes from inner strength, character and how we live our life to the best end.
Aristole 384-322 b.c.e. Aristotle conceptualized the branches of philosophy and contributed to the theories in logic, metaphysics, ethics and political philosophy (book 237). Aristotle’s teleological ethics: the reason for being. Aristotle focused on the peoples actions whether good or bad, as well as their character, not there right or wrong actions.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) branches of philosophy included contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Kant's deontological ethics, a duty based ethics. His focus is on rational will and a conception of self-governing reason, and not what kind of person one should be (Betzler 7).
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.
Aristotle’s Strength is his belief in moderation (Book480). Aristotle believes the ultimate goal in life is to be happy and people will do what makes them happy. He defined the highest good as “eudaimonia” (Chaffee 477). To a...
... middle of paper ...
...n different ways to achieve an end. However, I believe that Kant’s theory is most likely correct because it includes everyone and not just what makes an individual happy. Although, Kant’s views are a bit extreme when it comes to rules, we all have to have rules to live by we cannot just go out and do what makes us happy. I do like the “Golden Rule” better mainly because that is what my great-grandmother us to tell me all the time and it is a good rule to live by.
Works Cited
Betzler, Monika. Kant's Ethics of Virtue. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
Broadie, Sarah. Ethics with Aristotle. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Chaffee, John. The Philosopher's Way Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2009.
Kupperman, Joel. Ethics and Qualities of Life. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Klagge, JC 1989, Virtue: Aristotle or Kant? Virginia Tech Department of Philosophy, Web version accessed 14 May 2014.
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
In the reading “The Way of Reason” Aristotle tries to define the good that is within mankind. He moves through a variety of exercises that narrow down and simplify the ideas that man is inherently good and that his tendency for it is deliberate and pre-destined. He looks at different activities, then breaks them down and finds the part that leads toward the final happiness. He feels that if man is truly good within his soul that he will be happy. Not necessarily happy as joyful, but, more like content or satisfied.
Aristotle begins his ethical account by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and every choice, is thought to aim for some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (line 1094a1). Though some things might produce higher good than others, Aristotle looks for the highest good, which he says we must “desire for its own sake” and our actions are not decided on some other goal beyond this good itself (line 1094a20-25).[1] This highest good is then realized to be happiness (line 1095a16-20).
When we consider the questions of how we ought to live our lives, we often seek for some schematic that we can employ to help us categorize actions or qualities as good, bad, or indifferent. Such a means of organization would indeed make it easier to determine what the right thing to do is. Aristotle once attempted to formulate a similar plan. His ethics used a scheme by which characteristics could be measured and the right amount attained. Such an account is known as the doctrine of the mean. Aristotle’s doctrine is meant to illuminate the nature of eudaimonia, which can be briefly defined as succeeding or flourishing, the key to which is arête.
Aristotle develops his virtue ethics by first considering ends and goods. He claims that “every action and decision, seems to seek some good” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615). Aristotle states that we pursue certain things because of the benefits it brings itself and other consequences it may bring. Aristotle suggests that this is the same for goodness. We must pursue what is good for good itself and for any other benefits it may bring. Furthermore, Aristotle suggests that through pursuing the good, we are able to determine the best way of life (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615).
Immanuel Kant’s theory of ethics is rooted in deontology. Describing Kant’s ethics as deontological means that they are derivative of mankind’s moral duty. For Kant, this critical component of ethics is an extension of Hume’s fork as it creates a third category, which is synthetic Apriori. This category is comprised of math, ethics and causality. His rules-based ethics revolves around the good will, as deontology in its nature revolves around adhering to the rules. Kant says that intelligence is great by nature, but means very little unless you apply them in virtuous and good will. In order for something to be truly good, it must be intrinsically good and without qualification.
Interest is sparked in this area that Aristotle writes of because there is a natural need for Ethics in human life. John K. Roth states, “Aristotle assumes that all things, human beings included, have a good, a purpose or end, which it is their nature to fulfill”. This helps one understand Aristotle’s way of thinking, and provides insight to the basis of his theories. A common theory explored by Aristotle is the Ethics of Virtues, and how to practice them. A theory included in Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is the unity of all the virtues, and in order to be virtuous, one must exhibit all the virtues. One of these virtues being practical wisdom, or Phronesis.
It was Aristotle’s belief that everything, including humans, had a telos or goal in life. The end result or goal was said to be happiness or “eudaimonia”. He explained that eudaimonia was different for each person, and that each had a different idea of what it meant. Further, he said that people must do things in moderation, but at the same time do enough. The theory, of “the golden mean of moderation” was the basis to Aristotle's idea of the human telos and concluded that living a virtuous life must be the same for all people. Aristotle maintained that the natural human goal to be happy could only be achieved once each individual determined his/her goal. A person’s telos is would usually be what that individual alone can do best. Aristotle described the humans as "rational animals" whose telos was to reason. Accordingly, Aristotle thought that in order for humans to be happy, they would have to be able to reason, and to be governed by reason. If a person had difficulty behaving morally or with ethics, he was thought to be “imperfect”. Moral virtue, a principle of happiness, was the ability to evade extremes in behavior and further to find the mean between it and adequacy. Aristotle’s idea of an ideal state was one where the populous was able to practice eth...
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.
Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
Before describing the close relationship between the good and virtue, we have to define these terms. Virtue has a broader sense than the contemporary understanding we have of it, in the Nicomachean Ethics virtue simply means excellence. Aristotle defines a good by noticing that every action seeks some good. In the Nicomechean Ethics good and end are interchangeable and both mean goal. Having described a good, Aristotle makes a distinction between goods in order to define the latter. So there are two types of goods (1094a10-1094a16), some have an instrumental value, they refer to goods which we seek in order to obtain other goods. For example money is a good however we do not value it for itself but rather in order to obtain something else such as a material product. Other goods are intrinsic, we value them for themselves. For example health would be considered as an intrinsic good since we seek good health for itself. The distinction between instrumental and intrinsic goods enables us to establish a hierarchy of goods and to suppose the existence of a good which would be the highest one. Knowing that there is...
...Aristotle’s conclusion relates human good, activity of soul and excellence. It is this expression of virtue through action that allows happiness to be obtained. Such dependence on virtue sets the scene for Aristotle to examine virtue more closely. He will elaborate on the two parts of reasoning well (virtue). The first part of reasoning well is having the right desires to aim oneself at the right good and not just the apparent good. The second part of reasoning well is knowing how to get to this proper desire. This will be further elaborated in book two where Aristotle will explore what it means to reason well and what is means to be virtuous.
Immanuel Kant, a famous German philosopher, was influenced by Aristotle views in philosophy. In his work, the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant argues his view for ethics, deontology. Deontology believe that it is our duty to be morality right. It also says that certain types of actions are wrong or right, but how are we positive of what is right or wrong? Actions are the result of our choices and we should base our actions on our choices. Kant starts off his work by mentioning the word maxim. Kant believes that we act on a maxim when we make our own decisions. Maxims, in other words, are defined as a intent or goal. We set out on a maxim to achieve the best possible outcome, which brings Kant to his next argument that “good will appears to constitute the indispensable condition even of being worthy of happiness” (Kant 18). Good will is the only concept that is morally good without any requirement. Good will can result in the happiness that Aristotle believes in. It is our duty by the Category Imperative that we promote
What makes a person good? Immanuel Kant possession was, the only thing that is good without qualification, and this is a “good will". The right motive is to do the right things, to duty and respect moral law. For Kant, a good will is not good because of what it brings about or helps to bring about, but because it is good in itself.