Kant's ethical idea of the good creates a consistent benchmark in which all beings achieve goodness in the identical kind Aristotle's notion of the good, where one can be searched as good only after years of living virtuously in a plethora of ways, Kant believed that only by utilizing good will to entire categorical duties made man good. To conclude the philosophies of these two men are entirely different in regards Aristotle viewed good as a fluid concept and Kant believed it to be unchanging with no true end goal or eudaimonia besides fufilling the imperatives.
To achieve this topic, I have sectioned my paper into three main sections, in which I have subsections supporting. In the first section, I will provide much information about Aristotle and his beliefs in virtue and obtaining happiness. Using information from his book of ethics I will provide examples and quote on quote statements to support his views. In the second section, I will provide my agreements as to why I relate and very fond of Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics. In the third section, I will provide research as to why there are such objections to Aristotle’s book of ethics, and counter act as to why I disagree with them. Lastly I will conclude much of my and as well as Aristotle’s views on ethics and why I so strongly agree with this route of ethics for humans.
With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there
...al philosophy is so acclaimed is because it provides a stringent moral view without loopholes—it’s absolute. Kant was very clever in forming categorical imperatives and valuing good will, universal attributes which can be applied to everyone to determine moral status. As we saw in the course of this paper, his argument is strong against objection because morality is accredited to individuals and their duty and not side effects or resulting actions, things out of our realm to manage when attempting to act morally.
In this essay I will critically discuss Aristotle’s concept of virtue. I will illustrate how he was influenced by his predecessors and how he disagreed with them and developed his own philosophy. I will also describe how he defined the concept of virtue – what virtuous traits are and also how to be a virtuous person.
Aristole’s Nichomachean Ethics is a critically acclaimed piece of literature that has laid the framework for philosophy as we know it today. It is considered to be a historical piece that was the first to address ethics in a unified, clear, and concise manner. The book was translated by F. H. Peters with an introduction by Hye-Kyung Kim. Aristotle was one of the great early philosophers who ventured to speak to humans about how they conducted themselves as they related to others; however, some of Aristotle’s ideologies were debated by his counterparts for hundreds of years. Aristotle’s plethora of ideas was and has been adopted by past and present philosophers as they approached subject matter that had very few definitive answers. Aristotle was born in circa 384 B. C. and died in 322 B.C.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Korsgaadar, C.M., (1986). Aristotle on Function and Virtue. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 3 (3), p. 259-279.
One of Aristotle’s main objectives is to discuss the theory of moral responsibility, asking what actions a person should be considered responsible for if any. He begins by differentiating between types of actions, dividing them into two main categories—voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary actions, he argues, are those that people perform when they know what they are doing and intend a certain end. These are actions that people can reasonably judge and deem praiseworthy or blameworthy. For example, if a person