Phil 105 – Aristotle Vs. Immanuel KantEssay Preview: Phil 105 – Aristotle Vs. Immanuel KantReport this essayPalak ShahPhilosophy 105Aristotle vs. Immanuel KantThe philosophy of virtue ethics, which generally deals with the ways someone should live, has baffled philosophers from the beginning of time. Aristotle and Kant both view duty as something that comes, not just from what is lawful, or that is expected, but from the inside. Morality comes from the character, the inner strength and disposition. However, there are many contrasting interpretations regarding how one should live their life in the best way possible. It is in my opinion that Aristotle presents the most logical explanation of how to live the good life.
Aristotle claims that when we do something we do it to gain an end and the ultimate of all ends is the greatest good. However, to attain that end we must practice to improve our skills to become happy and live good lives (571). This supreme happiness that Aristotle discusses about is one for the society not just an individual. He saw the well being of a group as more significant than that of a single person. A virtuous person is one who succeeds different virtues, or character qualities that people usually admire (568). Aristotle distinguishes between moral virtues, such as courage and intellectual virtues, such as knowledge. There are many moral virtues, but they are between vices of excess and deficiency (569). For example, courage is a virtue, but if you are extremely courageous then you may become rash, but if you dont have enough courage you become a coward. He believes that in order for someone to be happy, they must live an active life of virtue, and in return bring him closer to the final end (564). Even though some may believe that these actions that the man chooses to take is what creates happiness, Aristotle believes that these actions are just a mere part of striving toward the final end. When looking at this theory, one might believe that this final end could rest in a persons job, if they enjoyed their trade, he would be acting rationally, and centering his attention on a specific good, the good which they produce (“Aristotle [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]”). For example, people may believe that for a surgeon the final end would be a successful surgery. Even if this person loves their job, the happiness they get out of the one surgery is in no way their only reason for being a surgeon. Not one action that this person takes directly brings him to this final end. For example, someone who is poor most likely would focus their perspective of happiness on wealth, while someone who is already rich would focus their view of happiness on something different, such as honor. This cycle keeps going on and on, until it reaches a final end, where happiness is finally achieved.
According to Kant, duty has minimal room for choices. Freedom is actually having a choice, but duty is what you have to do. Duty is reason, choice is freedom, and when you can choose what to do, morality and ethics take a back seat. What is moral to some people may not be empowering to all people, and when someone says, “This is moral, this is what you have a duty to do. Therefore it is the law”, not everyone may be in unison and will not become influenced when they are required to do the duty ( “Kants Ethics”). Morality is nothing more than self-delusion and embellishes conceit. What one person considers “righteous”, may just be “normal” to someone else, and therefore not a moral or ethical duty (Rachels 122). An example of this would be when someone invites a homeless person into their home for a meal. Others may think this is a righteous act, but the person who invited them may just consider it a routine, because it is in their nature to do so. It may not be a issue of morality or ethics to this person, but a normal way of being for them, a normal reaction to the commitment they made about a specific issue. Kant says that an action is only moral when done in the influence of duty. It cannot be abounding, nor can it be a matter of choice. When it is done from duty, it is what a person is required to do, and it is moral, but not freedom. Kant says this because good is not measured in more or lesser degrees (“Kants Ethics”). Good will is the principle on which the highest morals rest, allowing man to complete actions with the greatest moral worth. These principles can only be based on a priori origin. Kant stated that moral worth doesnt depend on the activity of the action (Rachels 123). So the true value is found on the principle of which the action is carried out on. Kant believed good will is the only thing that is truly good in itself and is not a product of anything else. He defined good will as, “the ability to complete actions for their sole purpose and duty” (“Kants Ethics”). Kant split these duties into two groups called hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives come from the motivation of completing an action for an end. Hypothetical duties can be viewed as the human error within our actions. Kant concluded that obligations are often mistaken for self preservation and happiness. Kants ethical theory of the good creates a uniform standard in which all beings achieve goodness in the same manner (“Kants Ethics”). Unlike Aristotles concept of the good, where one can be sought as good only after years of living virtuously in a plethora of ways, Kant believed that only by utilizing good will to complete categorical duties made someone good. Categorical imperatives motivates a person to complete actions for the sake of the action itself. Categorical duties are what a person should do. Such duties stand alone and arent based off experience. Kant affirms that these duties are universal to all rational beings. As a result, he believed that through categorical imperatives, the objectives by which one dies to act, or ones maxims, can become universal laws according to which one ought to act (Rachels 127).
Virtue ethics stresses the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing ones duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences (“Virtue Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]). It does not have a principle. Virtue ethicists dont ignore actions, but regard them as projections of a persons character. Virtues can not be passions, Aristotle believes, because we are not adored or blamed for the way we feel, but we are for our virtues (“Virtue Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]). We are not adored or blamed for our feelings, because they arise more or less involuntarily in response to situations. Aristotles reason for denying that virtues are faculties is similar though. Part of
Virtue Ethics
Moral philosophy has a major problem. Its only concern is with morals. The moral philosophy of Socrates and Socrates’ “philosophy” implies that the moral principles of actions matter and are only part of the very core of human social life. So, despite all these considerations, moral philosophy also holds that individuals are moral beings. Moral philosophy does however not embrace moral questions, only questions about whether a person’s actions are good and should be pursued by those to whom they belong. Moral philosophy does not treat each individual as though his actions are all true moral principles, but rather, as though the actions of the individual are of value to him and it is his duty to be accountable to him for all their actions. In contrast, moral philosophy does not try to identify some people with actions that are perfectly moral, but instead offers them with ways of doing that are morally good to which those with such actions take.
One of the major issues in Moral Philosophy is that the ethical question is not a moral question, but a moral question, either moral, ethical, ethical or ethical. On this basis, you have to ask the question: Is this one-person ethics? On such a level, it would seem unethical, and the moral philosophers generally endorse it. However, this would need to be answered in order to justify this kind of moral ethical being (I think this must be the problem here, but since this isn’t an ethical question, then I don’t have to answer it). To summarize, moral philosophy does not discuss ethics or morality (rather, it looks rather like moral issues, since many of these aren’t such). I think the main problem with Morality in our current society is it has two major components. First, some of the best moral philosophers endorse it in their own words and actions, but the main problem is that none of them is in a position where they endorse the ideal of the ideal. You only have to watch a couple of shows of American moral philosophers and you will see something like this (in the following video):
First, it would be nice if they said they could support a view that doesn’t actually hold up in the real world, and they offered this “goodbye” to a lot of ethical values that they hold dear. But I think morally philosophy should be just as good as any ethics that’s out there. Some ethical philosophy can’t really hold up to this reality.
Second, ethical moral philosophy tends to be much more like morality ethic than moral philosophy would be without one. Ethics is a very important element of moral philosophy, but I’d say that there is a big difference between moral ethics and ethical moral philosophy and that was quite a good point. Moral philosophy can easily get wrapped up in the question of whether or not the ethics is a moral philosophy (i.e., the ethical is not a moral philosophy