In Aristotelian ethics, the end game for an individual is to achieve eudaimonia, the highest form of morality in which one has achieved true happiness, by completely actualizing their potential and living a virtuous life. n I found the concept of eudaimonia interesting, and I noticed that many moral theories focused on happiness as a measure of morality yet Kantianism did not so I wanted to take a deeper look at the fundamental differences between the two theories and determine if there was a superior theorist. In my paper I look to see if there is a Kantian equivalent of eudaimonia, or a desired end result to Kantianism and in the process compare and contrast the two theories to determine which one offers a more realistic solution to the question of what defines virtue.
Aristotle and Kant have profoundly differing ethical viewpoints, specifically on what exactly defines virtue. Immediately I noticed a profound difference between the somewhat more modern take on ethics that Kant provides as compared to the possibly somewhat antiquated views of Aristotle.
In Nichomean Ethics, Aristotle questions what exactly good is. Aristotle cites some typical examples such as being happy, wholesome and respected amongst your peers, he beleives that “mens conception of the good or of happiness can be read in the lives that they lead.” (Vaughn 84) Aristotles argument is continued by getting to the origin of every good activity. He remarked that if a man kept wondering which actions were good, he would find that every good activity lead to some end result of joy. Due to this a man can further his joy by drawing examples from his own life. For example, if a man is sick, he desires for good wellbeing, because it is what he accepts as true ...
... middle of paper ...
...count the good of an activity. If the activity can be applied unanimously to all men, then the activity would clearly be deemed as good. I think Kant would compare the hypothetical and categorical imperatives to Aristotles theory that doing virtuous acts continually leads to the greatest good, eudaimonia.
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.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics is based on eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the ultimate end which means that your life is flourishing and you’re doing well in life. Eudaimonia is self-sufficient and gives one the ability to make life choices and have a lack for nothing.
Klagge, JC 1989, Virtue: Aristotle or Kant? Virginia Tech Department of Philosophy, Web version accessed 14 May 2014.
From examining ends and goods, Aristotle formulates eudaimonia. He questions “what is the highest of all the goods achievable in action?” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 616). Aristotle argues that the majority of people agree that the highest good is achieving happiness, however, they disagree over what happiness actually is, for example, some claim t...
Kant conveys his beliefs by introducing the idea of a moral law. He believes there is a moral law that is to be upheld by everyone. The moral law is an unconditional principle that defines the standards of right action. Good will is a form of moral law because it’s a genuine attitude behind an action. Anything that is naturally good is morally good which sums up to be good will. Actions of good will do the right thing for the reason of simply being the right thing to do. There is no qualification, benefactor or incentive its good will and no personal gain, inclination, or happine...
Although both philosophers believe that you have to be moral in order to be good, their definitions of both happiness and moral virtue differ. Aristotle’s goal in, “The Nicomachean Ethics,” is to argue that there is such thing as a chief good as well as to argue his definition of happiness. virtue is a mean; but in respect of what is right and what is right and best, it is an extreme (Aristotle, 42).” Here Aristotle explains that moral virtue is determined by reason and that it avoids the states of too much, excess, or too little, deficiency. He believes that our soul is the principle of living because it is inside of us.
Aristotle's ethics consist of a form of virtue ethics, in which the ethical action is that which properly complies with virtue(s) by finding the mean within each particular one. Aristotle outlines two types of virtues: moral/character virtues and intellectual virtues. Though similar to, and inspired by, Plato and Socrates’ ethics, Aristotle's ethical account differs in some areas.
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.
The Nicomachean Ethics, written by Aristotle, represents his most important contribution within the field of Ethics; it is a collection of ten books, covering a variety of interesting topics, throughout the collection. 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. Without pretending to exhaust with too many references, it would be rather useful to focus on the most criticized part of the philosopher’s attempt, which is also the very starting point of his masterpiece, identified as eudaimonia (happiness, well being) and ergon (function), in Aristotelian terms.
Where Kant and Aristotle differ in their beliefs is that Aristotle proposes using the mind with virtue to obtain the Good Life. Aristoltle believed that the desire to live the fulfilled live is what being a human being was all about. Wealth, honor and pleasure were all part of the highest good in some way. Material wealth is always obtained to get something else. In order to reach Eudemonia (happiness) humans must have intellectual virtues and virtue of character. Intellectual Virtue is the same as scientific knowledge and comes from the truth and education of nature. Virtue of character comes from courage, temperance and generosity. Overall Aristotle believes that virtue comes from acting right and showing good character by performing
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act, but a habit.” These words from Aristotle summarize his virtue ethics theory, one of western philosophy’s three major theories regarding the ultimate standards of moral evaluation. Virtue ethics is sometimes seen as a bridge between the other two prominent moral theories, utilitarianism and deontology. Through readings, research, and in class discussion, I have concluded that virtue ethics is not really a middle ground between utilitarian and deontological moral theories. These three theories represent individual theories entirely. While all three theories do differ, Aristotle's view is much better than those of Kant and Mill. Throughout this paper I will give arguments for why
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.
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.
Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.
According to Aristotle, the good life is the happy life, as he believes happiness is an end in itself. In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops a theory of the good life, also known as eudaimonia, for humans. Eudaimonia is perhaps best translated as flourishing or living well and doing well. Therefore, when Aristotle addresses the good life as the happy life, he does not mean that the good life is simply one of feeling happy or amused. Rather, the good life for a person is the active life of functioning well in those ways that are essential and unique to humans. Aristotle invites the fact that if we have happiness, we do not need any other things making it an intrinsic value. In contrast, things such as money or power are extrinsic valuables as they are all means to an end. Usually, opinions vary as to the nature and conditions of happiness. Aristotle argues that although ‘pleasurable amusements’ satisfy his formal criteria for the good, since they are chosen for their own sake and are complete in themselves, nonetheless, they do not make up the good life since, “it would be absurd if our end were amusement, and we laboured and suffered all our lives for the sake of amusing ourselves.”
...good life is, Aristotle still defines a good life in a way that is too specific to be applied to all instances of human behavior. Personally, I see Aristotle’s idea of a good life to be close to my own idea of what a good life is. However, with access to thousands of years of accumulated human knowledge, I recognize that what is best for me is likely not best for everyone, and others must find their own path to happiness on their own journey.