Aristotle's View Of Morality By Immanuel Kant

Good Essays
In this essay I will argue that Aristotle’s view of morality is superior to that of Immanuel Kant because Aristotle takes into account an individual’s entire life when determining if they are an ethical person, whereas Kant looks only at the individual actions. He determines morality by looking at what kind of person we should be, while Kant answers these questions by looking at what actions we should perform. Secondly, Kant argues that happiness shouldn’t be involved in the ethical decision making process, while Aristotle believes that not only are happiness and ethical decisions linked, but in order to achieve happiness, it is required to make virtuous decisions. A third reason why I prefer Aristotle’s moral reasoning is that Kant says that …show more content…
He also argues that a completely ethical person will not be conflicted about his ethical choice, opposite of Kant, who thinks that a person can make an ethical choice while desiring the wrong alternative. In fact, he prefers that, because it shows that the person is doing his duty, not the action just because it makes him happy. Kant might defend himself by saying that it would be too easy for a person to succumb to selfish desires if he is gaining happiness from his virtuous acts, and any action is not moral if there are any external motivators, but I will show how this defense fails near the end of the paper. Kant and Aristotle have very different opinions on what makes a person virtuous and what defines a virtuous act. My thoughts on morality line up more with Aristotle’s. I believe that a person cannot be judged based on a single act, because everyone has made decisions they wish they could change and no one is perfect, that is just how humans are. A better way to assess morality is to look at the habits a person forms and the decisions a person makes throughout their life. For Kant, a person would be virtuous if they saved someone’s life, for example, even though it made them late for …show more content…
I don’t think that this should have anything to do with the judgment of an action’s morality. An action, no matter how good, may be considered amoral or even immoral if someone performs it due to a bad motivation, such as money or power, but happiness is not a bad motivation. In fact, Aristotle says that it is better if someone associates happiness with ethical acts, and that enjoying virtuous things is a sign of a virtuous person. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that, “Pleasure in doing virtuous acts is a sign that the virtuous disposition has been acquired: a variety of considerations show the essential connection of moral virtue with pleasure and pain.” It makes sense that someone who enjoys doing virtuous things could considered a virtuous person. It seems to me that Kant wants someone who hates virtuous acts but still performs them to be the virtuous person, but if someone enjoys the act, they are not virtuous at all. That is not the type of person I would want to give that credit to. If both people perform the same activity, but one person has a good attitude and will perform that activity again, and the other hated it and will avoid that situation in the future, I would say that the first person was the virtuous one. But Aristotle goes further than this by saying that happiness is more than just a factor in

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    I do not totally agree with this however, a person could intend something bad and wrong but in the end, end up causing great happiness. Kant is practically the opposite on this point. Kant like mentioned above believes that an action is only good if it in itself is good. He believes in order to be good it cannot be based on the consequences of its actions. Kant takes into account what happens before an action to determine if it is good, where Mill focuses on the ends.…

    • 1351 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    J.S Mill and Immanuel Kant both had their own very convincing theories regarding how to determine if an action/choice is morally permissible or not. Mill’s Principle of Utility focuses on the quality and quantity of happiness produced to determine the morality, while Kant’s Categorical Imperative concentrates more on our intentions. According to Mill’s Principle, Pat should not tell Chris that she cheated, because it would create more pain than pleasure. The pain that Chris would feel after finding out he was cheated on and the pain Pat would feel after being broken up with outweighs the happiness/pleasures of them both, so according to Mill, telling Chris would not be a morally permissible action. According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative,…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He says, “The greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill 52). Mill’s utilitarian ethical theory rely majorly on the self-interest rather performing an act as a duty. An ethical theory should have a reason justified for performing a specific act. The ability of an act to yield maximum happiness should not be used to determine whether the act is moral or immoral. It involves assessing what the people perceive to be moral and taking actions which will produce insignificant consequences on the people other than the individual performing the act.…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The second formulation is the ‘Principle of Ends not Means’, it works on the basis that all people are equal and therefore it is wrong to exploit others or use them for personal benefits. This formulation shows how Kant had a respect for the value of humans, which is obviously important for an ethical theory; Kant believed that all people were an end in themselves. It also displays the importance of intention. You shouldn’t carry out an act that you know will treat someone as just a means, even if it benefits a greater good (contrast to utilitarianism). Kant thought that through helping others gain happiness (not treating them as just means) we also developed our own moral perfection- this also links in with Kant’s desire for a better society overall.…

    • 1607 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, it is possible to reconcile them in some sense. In my opinion, Aristotle’s idea that happiness depends on the character but also that happiness is objective not subjective, is one of the complementary elements of Parfit’s theory of objective list. Parfit’s theory ignores the agent’s character and his or her will by claiming that objective goods can benefit people independently of their attitudes toward them. Since having the goods in the list without awareness does not provide the best life to that person, character should be counted as an important element of the best life. Also, in the list of goods there are some goods about the character and these goods are not contingent, they should be gained by the agent.…

    • 715 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    By emphasizing the importance of character traits, Aristotle gives humans credit that they can be good people performing activities because of their character not just because of rules they ought to follow. The only weak point in the theory is the reliance on virtue being essential to happiness. It fails to consider that everyone is different, unlike character traits/moral virtues which can vary from person to person or culture to culture. If the ethics of virtue applied all of its components more universally, realizing that everyone is different and that some virtuous people are not happy and some non-virtuous people are, it would make a more sound…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If this action made more happiness than any other action it still would be prohibited. In Kantian Ethics there are two main things we have to evaluate before me make a decision; “(1) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? (2) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?” If the action does not meet those standards then we shouldn't do the action. (Q1) Immanuel Kant’s way of pursuing ethics is all about how right or wrong an action is rather than being focused on what consequence that action will have or the nature of the person doing that action. He believes that all humans are logical and being rational is the ideal good.…

    • 1606 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Immanuel Kant's Analysis

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages

    While Kant disagrees with his fellow moral objectivists on where morals come from, it is important to understand what they agreed on: they all reject utilitarianism and the belief that morality is derived from actions that produce maximum happiness. Their reasoning against this philosophy helps to illustrate the main point of objectivism. The first problem with…

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    We do not achieve honor by ourselves and we can lose honor easily as opposed to virtue. In addition, Aristotle states that in trying to achieve honor, people are also trying to believe that they are virtuous or excellent. Regardless of if they really are or not, by gaining these opinions from other people, they are able to “convince themselves that they are good” (1095b28). This in itself shows that honor cannot be the highest good because honor is being used in order to gain another good. In my view, I completely agree with Aristotle’s statements against honor because I cannot deny the fact that when people seek honor, they seek to be honored by other people.…

    • 1329 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example , if someone tries to do something nice for you, but messes up and causes more problems. According to Kant you cannot blame them for trying to help you because they caused some problems. That is what makes Kant 's view different from those of his time and also makes it deontological. There is an aspect that gets taken into account when taking Kant 's deontological approach to his moral theory and that is the good will. In Kant 's opinion the good will is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because you will in some…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics