Aristotle's Role Of Pleasure In Morality

1264 Words 6 Pages
In philosophy there are many stands to take when it comes to a view of topic shared and discovered by many. Specifically, there are three philosophers that have differing ideas on the role of pleasure in morality, Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. They share and clarify their positions through a plethora of titles and information that will help a reader gain a better understanding of the role of pleasure in morality. Though each philosopher has their own share of ideas of what the highest good represents, they all believe in morality being the search for the highest good.
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
…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 …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

Related Documents