How to resolve moral and ethical dilemmas has plagued society since the beginning of time. Aristotle, Mill, Kant and Held are four people who have different approaches on how we can solve these problems or dilemmas. Aristotle, who has the oldest theory on ethics of the four believed in having a virtuous character. Virtue according to Aristotle was obtained by habit, so by doing good we become good. The act of doing good must however fall between two extremes. For example, if we have courage that means that we fall between the extremes of rashness and cowardice. The goal for these virtues is that they aim at some good, and good has rightly been declared to be that to which all things aim. The chief good that we are trying to obtain is happiness. …show more content…
Mill states that in order for you to achieve that happiness you need to have as much pleasure as possible and be absent from pain. Actions that you took would be considered right if they promoted happiness and wrong if they produced the opposite of happiness. If you were stuck between two actions and both would bring you happiness, Mill would argue that you should do the action that provided the most happiness. This action was not necessarily to bring you happiness, but to bring happiness to all concerned. Mill would also favor mental pleasures over physical ones. Kant, unlike Mill argues that moral actions should not focus on the consequences but should instead be judged by the nature of the maxim that motivated the action. Thus right actions do not always have favorable outcomes. Kant bases the maxims on universal laws because they are applicable without exception to every person all the time. Kant coins the term “categorical imperative” to refer to his supreme moral principal. The principle states that you should always treat someone as an end but never as a means. In laymen’s terms, it means you do the right thing simply because it’s the right …show more content…
His ethical approach of following the universal laws or categorical imperative is important because it tells us to do the right thing despite what we might think or feel. We have an obligation to do the action even if the outcome favors others rather than ourselves. For example, when my kids wash their hands for dinner, they don’t do it to make me happy, and they don’t do this because they like to, they do it because they have a duty to do so. And yes the outcome does favor me. These actions are not based upon the emotions but on the duty to do
In Aristotle 's Nicomachean Ethics, the basic idea of virtue ethics is established. The most important points are that every action and decision that humans make is aimed at achieving the good or as Aristotle 's writes, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at the good... (Aristotle 1094a). Aristotle further explains that this good aimed for is happiness.
Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.
John Stuart Mill writes in a publication in the 1800s about the subject of happiness. John is a philosopher who is trying to say in this quote that happiness is a byproduct of what we strive to achieve in our lives everyday, whether that be doing what’s right in our mind or just having fun partaking in one of our hobbies. Many have pondered this question and have come up with varying conclusions. Some believe that a state of happiness is a choice, when it in fact it is more complex than that. In order to achieve happiness however, we must be indirect about it as happiness cannot be a conscious feeling, and in order to achieve it in the first place, we need to pursue things other than our own happiness to become happy. (Brink 89)
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).
Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
Moral decisions are based on ethics such as divine command theories, ethics of conscience or ethics of our inner voice, ethical egoism, ethics of duty, ethics of respect, ethics of rights, ethics of Justice, virtue ethics and utilitarianism which is an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness, and wrong if it ends in unhappiness. Socrates and his contemporaries were the first to undertake by reasoned analysis and arguments to investigate how one ought to lead one’s life and, on that basis, to reject uncritical reliance on the traditional authorities in these matters. The claim that they are to be regarded as the first moral philosophers rests on their self-conscious appeal to the authority of reason in determining how one ought to lead one’s life, and there attention to devising methods appropriate for the employment of reason in investigating the questions that arose in this connection. No complete writing of any of this first generation of moral philosophers survives. The principal lines of the later debates were shaped by this first generation of moral theorists. Three treatises on ethics survive under Aristotle’s name: Magna Moralia, Eudemian Ethics, and the
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rights theory, according to Kant. He believes that moral principles are universal, and that all rational human beings are expected to conform to moral reasoning. Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The theories talked about by Kant and Mill deal with the moral qualities of choices or actions. Although they are very different, none of the theories shows concern in the ethics on what really constitutes a good human being. However, Kant’s theory is much deontological. This means that it locates the moral worth with an action within the action itself. Therefore, the main concern is not in the consequences associated with the specific action. On a more specific note, Kant’s point of view is that it is possible to have one duty or rule, which can be categorized or characterized as being the categorical imperative. He arrived at three different formulations pertaining to this imperative (Kant & Gregory, 1998).
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.
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.
In John Stuart Mill’s autobiography A Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward, Mill opines that when a person sets happiness as an expectation or life goal, he or she is normally left discontent and unsatisfied. He argues that the easiest way to feel happy is to not focus on trying to be happy. Furthermore, Mill states that there are plenty of things in life that can lead to our enjoyment and make us blissful if only our goal is not to find happiness from them. He closes by stating that this is a great life philosophy for anyone who is sensible. John Stuart Mill is correct because trying to find happiness leads to discontent but bliss comes to a person when they are not focused on finding happiness.
...attainment of happiness is oftentimes difficult, so we are morally justified in searching to essentially reduce the amount of unhappiness and pain experienced by the human beings impacted by some of our actions. According to Mill, the absence of pleasure is only acceptable when it is for the greater good of humanity.