Aristotle: One Major Similarities Between Aristotle And Kant

Aristotle and Kant have one major similarity. They both feel that the reasons behind an action are important in determining the moral worth of that action. I will demonstrate the differences between a person of Aristotelian virtue and a person who has Kantian moral worth in the following pages of this paper. I will also argue why Aristotle’s view is correct. The major differences between Aristotle and Kant are how they deem the reasons behind an action to have moral worth. Aristotle feels that virtue is key while Kant feels duty is used to determine if an action has moral worth. The backbone of Aristotelian virtue and Kantian moral worth is found in reason and inclination. In Kantian moral worth there is a distinct divide between reason and …show more content…
For Aristotle he believes that inclinations are semi-rational, responsive to reason and can be changed by reason. For example if you know something is wrong you should be able to will yourself not to want it anymore because of reason. The level of virtue deemed to an action can be imagined on a scale from not virtuous to most virtuous, while in Kant’s case there are only two options for actions; having moral worth or not having moral worth. Much like Kant, Aristotle has his own way of determining if an action if virtuous. Firstly the person must have knowledge that the action is virtuous, meaning through their reason they must know this is the right thing to do. Secondly the person must choose this action because it is the most virtuous thing. Finally the person must do this with firm and unchanging character, meaning they have stable inclinations in line with reason. This is why for Aristotle that the reason and inclinations are not much different and they both are morally relevant. This is why Aristotle says we can change our inclinations through habitual actions. This is also why I feel Aristotle’s view is correct while Kant’s is …show more content…
As a player on a Division I soccer team I have personally experienced the ups and downs of a typical season. You go through a month of preseason which consists of three practices a day and then once school starts you begin 2 months of practice everyday and at least two to three games a week. It is expected by the end of the season that you are run down and ready for a break. This past week I was in the Missouri Valley final round, which has never been done by a Loyola Woman’s soccer team before, and although I was filled with excitement and anticipation leading up to the game I couldn’t ignore the little voice in my head begging for it to be over. Now, I like to think of myself as a morally good person most of the time. After losing in the finals and being devastated I realized I was wrong to want the season to be over after seeing 24 girls give their lives to a program. Although I gave everything I had in that final game I still had inclinations to want a break. In this case Kant would say I am just as morally good as my teammates who also gave everything they had in the game but they did not have negative inclinations as I did. While Aristotle would acknowledge that I gave my best effort, he would say that I am less virtuous than my teammate for the negative inclinations I had. And I fully agree with this and see that I was wrong and less virtuous than my teammate. I can