More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle and ethics understanding
Aristotle nicomachean ethics analysis
Aristotle nicomachean ethics analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Aristotle's and Kant's ideas of the means and ends of moral ethics are in sharp contrast. Both have strengths and weaknesses in their arguments, but Aristotle's is superior to Kant's because it is more realistic. I will first give the basis of both philosophies, Aristotle first, Kant second. Next, I will expand and question points of both philosophies, Aristotle's end, and Kant's means. Lastly, I will explain the reasoning behind why I favor Aristotle's ethics over Kant's. Both philosophies appeals to reason, but they come to different conclusions.
To start, according to Aristotle, the end of every action aims at a good (1094a1-10). He goes on to say that the highest good is the most complete, that it is good in itself and is not chosen to gain something else. Aristotle believes that the highest good that every action aims for is happiness, because it is self-sufficient (1097b1-10). For example, why does a person want a high paying job? So they can earn money. Why does a person want money? So they can get things. Why does a person want to get things? So they can become happy, or believe that it would give them happiness. Aristotle comes to this conclusion by taking into account the opinions of people, realizing that almost everyone is trying to obtain happiness (1095a10-20). In addition, Aristotle believes the means for achieving happiness are through the excellence of one's being. The term Aristotle uses here is aretê, or virtue. Essentially, virtue is the excellence of something, in this case moral action (1095b20-30). Virtue leads to happiness because it "seems to be more durable even than the kinds of knowledge" (1100b10-20). Earlier, Aristotle came to the conclusion that happiness is something that is not changed easily. If ...
... middle of paper ...
...uld not be continually practiced.
Therefore, even with conflicts in Aristotle’s ethics it is superior and more realistic than Kant’s. Aristotle’s conception of happiness is achievable and could be pursued by anyone. Kant’s moral action by duty could not. In addition, Aristotle’s ethics could be continually followed, while Kant’s could not because moral actions could not continue to be moral. Overall, Aristotle has a well-rounded ethic philosophy that has few problems in it, but none that completely undermine it. Kant has several problems that undermine his philosophy.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Joe Sachs. Newbury, MA: Focus Pub./R. Pullins, 2002. Print.
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: With on a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. Trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. Print.
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.
Recent literature has aimed to reconcile the content of Kant and Aristotle’s work on morality, or at least, to compare the theories as though they are contending. However, I shall argue that the two philosophers are answering intrinsically different questions. If two philosophers operate within a precise domain of philosophy, it can be tempting to assess their distinct arguments as disagreeable with the other. However, in some cases, their arguments may be aimed at responding to different questions. In such instances, endeavors to reconcile or compare the fabricated ‘opposition’ between two arguments can be unproductive and perplexing, ...
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s elucidation of happiness is based on a ground of ethics because happiness to him is coveted for happiness alone. The life of fame and fortune is not the life for Aristotle. Happiness is synonymous for living well. To live well is to live with virtue. Virtue presents humans with identification for morals, and for Aristotle, we choose to have “right” morals. Aristotle defines humans by nature to be dishonored when making a wrong decision. Thus, if one choses to act upon pleasure, like John Stuart Mill states, for happiness, one may choose the wrong means of doing so. Happiness is a choice made rationally among many pickings to reach this state of mind. Happiness should not be a way to “win” in the end but a way to develop a well-behaved, principled reputation.
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).
Kant, Immanuel. 1993. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns, 3rd Edition. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Ethics is the study of human values, actions and life decisions, also known as morality. By using moral principles, claims which guide individuals by telling them what they ought and ought not to do, ethics attempts to determine if something is good or bad. However at times different moral principles conflict with another, making it difficult to see what the best course of action is. A good moral theory solves that dilemma by attempts to explain why a person or action is right or wrong, or why a person’s character is good or bad by stating which moral principles are more important than others. Two infamous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism.
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.
Coming from a military background, it is not surprising that I find Kantianism as the preferred method of ethics. In my experience, I find that right and wrong, as absolute truths, are existent and necessary to guide the morality of society. While Utilitarianism has promising overtones, I feel that it allows room and almost promotes relativism, which is not a supported social philosophy. Although Utilitarianism places the categorical imperative on the happiness of the larger population, Kantianism places the morality upon each individual by claiming that all things should be done from the "good will" of the individual. In this essay, the societal philosophies of Kantianism and Utilitarianism will be compared and show that the individual morality,
From pursuing pleasure to avoiding pain, life seems to ultimately be about achieving happiness. However, how to define and obtain happiness has and continues to be a widely debated issue. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives his view on happiness. Aristotle focuses particularly on how reason, our rational capacity, should help us recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life.';(Cooley and Powell, 459) He refers to the soul as a part of the human body and what its role is in pursuing true happiness and reaching a desirable end. Aristotle defines good'; as that which everything aims.(Aristotle, 459) Humans have an insatiable need to achieve goodness and eventual happiness. Sometimes the end that people aim for is the activity they perform, and other times the end is something we attempt to achieve by means of that activity. Aristotle claims that there must be some end since everything cannot be means to something else.(Aristotle, 460) In this case, there would be nothing we would try to ultimately achieve and everything would be pointless. An ultimate end exists so that what we aim to achieve is attainable. Some people believe that the highest end is material and obvious (when a person is sick they seek health, and a poor person searches for wealth).
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...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Happiness is the ultimate goal for everyone in life. Aristotle's definition of " happiness is happiness is the activity of the soul in accord with perfect virtue. To become a better person, we must practice virtuous acts regularly. After a while, these acts will become a habit and so the virtuous acts. part of our every day life and the person will be leading a virtuous life.
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...