Comparing Kant, Mill, And Mill's Analysis

Philosophers and individuals in general often disagree greatly on the tenets and qualities of morality. What the nature of morality truly is, how it applies to the individual, and what classifies as moral or immoral act. Three of the most interesting viewpoints, however, may come from Aristotle, Kant, and Mill, all of whom introduced their perspectives on the field and their own unique stance on morality. Aristotle was, of course, the earliest of the three philosophers, and thus has less of a base to work upon in his theories. According to Kraut (2014), Aristotle’s ethics found that the things perceived as good are generally shared across humanity, and there is little conflict regarding what is and is not good. Additionally, Aristotle’s theory posit that “If we use reason well, we live well as human beings; or, to be more precise, using reason well over the course of a full life is what happiness consists in activities caused by the rational soul in accordance with virtue or excellence” (Kraut, 2014, p. 3). “He …show more content…
However, as one who came from a different background/tradition, I believe I have a cultural advantage, to conduct myself ethically and do good to others. This, in my opinion is the best way to influence others to do good. Kant's philosophy resonates with me more than the others, his analysis is conceivably parallel to my tradition and moral ethics. Kant indicate that “the only thing good without qualification is a good will.” According to Kant, “what makes a good person good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way ‘determined’ by, or makes its decisions on the basis of, the moral law” (Johnson, 2014, p. 4) Given that my parents were recognized by the community as good people, I became intrigued and emulated their actions. I am reminded every day to do good to others from the inspiration that came from the good my parents did for their