The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, and German philosopher, Imanuel Kant, have both composed compelling arguments on what distinguishes a person who possesses good moral values from one who lacks them. Aristotle bases his ideologies on the concepts of eudaimonia and virtue. Aristotle does not place emphasis on a formulated method for determining right from wrong. Kant, on the other hand, devised a method for distinguishing good morals from bad morals. His Formula of Universal Law is an excellent way to determine the rightness of an action in many cases. However, the formula can be difficult to follow under certain circumstances. Aristotle offers a more flexible and generalized moral ideal, whereas Kant proposes an idea that conforms strictly
…show more content…
It also requires people to act out of a character that they formed throughout the process of virtuous habituation. Imanuel Kant, on the other hand, associates moral action much more closely to laws and formulas. Kant, like Aristotle places an emphasis on rationality, but does not connect emotional appetites to morality and rationality in his theory. He is a firm believer in the idea that the only intrinsic good is a good will rather than happiness (Kant 1). He also stresses that the moral worthiness of an action is determined by whether or not a person has done it out of sense of duty or out of a sense of conforming to standards of society (Kant 3-4). Similar to Aristotle's third point in the guidelines of choosing to act virtuously, Kant believes that people should only act out of a sense of duty. The moral worth is related to the maxim or the principle upon which a person acts by. Maxims determine whether or not an action is correct, and Kant proposes a way to test your maxim in order to confirm that it is morally worthy or immoral. This test is known as the Formula of the Universal Law. This formula in general states that if your maxim can be turned into a universal law that everyone followed and has a negative impact on the world, then your maxim fails to be considered one of moral worth. Kant believes that the maxim can fail the formula in two ways. His first mode of failure is recognized as contradiction in conception which means that if everyone were to abide by the maxim then there would be a negative impact on society. The contradiction of will, which is Kant's second mode of failure, is one in which a maxim may be beneficial to somebody in one instance but also has the potential to contradict the will of that person in other instances
It also requires people to act out of a character that they formed throughout the process of virtuous habituation. Imanuel Kant, on the other hand, associates moral action much more closely to laws and formulas. Kant, like Aristotle places an emphasis on rationality, but does not connect emotional appetites to morality and rationality in his theory. He is a firm believer in the idea that the only intrinsic good is a good will rather than happiness (Kant 1). He also stresses that the moral worthiness of an action is determined by whether or not a person has done it out of sense of duty or out of a sense of conforming to standards of society (Kant 3-4). Similar to Aristotle's third point in the guidelines of choosing to act virtuously, Kant believes that people should only act out of a sense of duty. The moral worth is related to the maxim or the principle upon which a person acts by. Maxims determine whether or not an action is correct, and Kant proposes a way to test your maxim in order to confirm that it is morally worthy or immoral. This test is known as the Formula of the Universal Law. This formula in general states that if your maxim can be turned into a universal law that everyone followed and has a negative impact on the world, then your maxim fails to be considered one of moral worth. Kant believes that the maxim can fail the formula in two ways. His first mode of failure is recognized as contradiction in conception which means that if everyone were to abide by the maxim then there would be a negative impact on society. The contradiction of will, which is Kant's second mode of failure, is one in which a maxim may be beneficial to somebody in one instance but also has the potential to contradict the will of that person in other instances