Aristotle begins with his description of happiness as fulfillment of all desires, in accordance with compliance of virtue. When he states,
“But in the case of the virtues, an act is not performed justly or with self-control if the act itself is of a certain kind, but only if in addition the agent has certain characteristics as he performs it: first of all, he must know what he is doing; secondly, he must choose to act the way he does, and he must choose it for its own sake; and in the third place, the act must spring from a firm and un- changeable character.” Aristotle is bringing attention to the actual implementation of the agent. …show more content…
When these “agents” are being acted outward in well manner it is the practice of obtaining a virtue. When these virtues are obtained, Aristotle believes this is how we also obtain happiness, which is a pleasure. Aristotle mentions, “Virtue, being concerned with pleasure and pain...makes us act in the best way in matters involving pleasure and pain.” Basically applying that no man will want do act in objection to gaining pleasure, so aiming towards these pleasurable virtues will result in happiness. In much accordance with Aristotle, Kant also idealizes these actual duties being practiced. Kant describes pleasure as being goodwill, termed by proper duty. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity... always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” Implying, acts that compliment a virtue will result in pleasure for a greater good. Both Aristotle and Kant look for a certain set of actions to complete obtaining a pleasure. In Kant’s piece On a Supposed Right to Lie, “Therefore, whoever tells a lie, regardless of how good his intentions may be, must answer for the consequences resulting therefrom... regardless of how unforeseen those consequences may be. This is because truthfulness is a duty that must be regarded as the basis of all duties founded on contract, and the laws of such duties would be rendered uncertain and useless if even the slightest exception to them were admitted.” Kant’s complementary piece puts emphases on the indication that any omission to the principle of truth ends the common goal. This validates that in any situation each individual should be honest and should not fib in the heat of the moment. We may come across a particular situation that we may feel requires us to lie to ease a situation or avoid damage. In contrast, Mill proposes that happiness is achieved as a pleasure when pain isn’t present. Mill implies that the goal is to create a happiness that will benefit the greater good. To Mill, it seems that morality is more of a fulfillment in united circumstances rather than self-fulfillment. Kant puts out to us that laws should be viewed as a positive interest amongst a group in unity in his text from Utilitarianism, “First, …show more content…
The fact of comparison is the beginning and the persistence placed on the devotion of moral obligations Kant’s categorical imperative is indeed categorically imperative. Mill also has an outset of morality to be the responsibility of fulfilling one’s duty and succeeding following rules, but in a completely different logic. In the circumstance of Kant, duty must be done for duty’s sake, for Mill, duty must obey the happiness principle, preserving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this approach of contrast, Aristotle varies due to him not viewing morality as duty for its own sake, or obedience of laws, for some idea of larger good, but in its place the protection of a balanced value controlling oneself between extremes. Aristotle values the fulfillment of the singular; both Kant and Mill are more apprehensive with the concentration of the