Comparing Kant And Aristotle's Analysis

Improved Essays
Kant and Aristotle are both philosophers who have different views about the highest human good and morality. Kant believes the only thing perfectly good is the good will (Haber 1993, 61). It is independent of other influences and acts in accordance with duty. The good will is intrinsically good, good without qualification. However, that is not to say everything a human does is done with good will, hence why it is based off duty. One such duty of humans is to secure their own happiness (Haber 1993, 65). However, as the duty of achieving is contained and only possess moral worth by following a set of moral laws. There are also two kinds of duty, perfect and imperfect duties that can be applied to others or self (Haber 1993, 72). All duties have …show more content…
I believe Aristotle’s definition of the highest good being happiness makes sense as you can’t any further than why you want to be happy. Of course, said actions to achieve happiness have to be in line of a virtuous life much like Kant’s restriction on the good will being in line with duty. However, the goal is to achieve happiness in Aristotle’s view on the highest good, which is why it is impossible to sacrifice it. Kant’s categorical imperatives can be put against one another by having conflicting duties which is why I believe Kant’s definition is less reliable than Aristotle’s.
While it can be argued Aristotle’s view also has holes, such as what determines what is prudent, to which Aristotle’s responds role models who possesses virtue. This is to say there is an external influence, that being society, that determines if an action is virtuous or not. That being said, I do believe in ethical relativism so it would make sense that the society one is raised in determines how you view certain things morally. It is more understandable than having conflicting duties for one individual that may not even lead one to a life

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Mill used utilitarianism as a basis for ethics and he argued that we already do use utilitarianism as a moral standard. To Mill an action is right if it promotes happiness and it is wrong if it reverse happiness. Kant on the other hand bases his view of ethics on good will rather than the outcomes of happiness. As we read, utilitarianism focuses on outcomes of happiness, here we can concluded that it is based on ends, not on means or intentions. 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.…

    • 1351 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior 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
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Whether we feel against or not we know the morally right thing and it’s our duty to care out our action. Apart from what is in the sense of good will nothing else is considered to be good. He says that when guided to do what’s good in by morality there is no seeking for the reward. The simple reward is doing the right thing. When based off of feelings as for a reward for doing the right thing then it is not morality.…

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Kant does not think that good will is not the same as the phrases, ‘he’s good hearted’, she’s good natured’, and ‘she mean’s well’ because they are ordinary notions. The idea of a good person is ideally closer to the idea of ‘the good will’. Kant’s idea of good will is what makes a good person is his possession of a will that is in certain way determined by, or makes their decisions on the basis of moral law. The only way a person can achieve good will is the idea of one who only makes decisions based on she holds to be morally worth taking moral considerations I themselves to be conclusive reasons to guide her behavior. This sort of character is what a person highly values.…

    • 1471 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved 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
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Kant being filled with happiness and having the characteristic on being good are two different things. “Happiness can even be reduced to less than nothing”, but an achievement happiness is always conditioned. “Kant claims that a good will is an ultimate, unconditional good. Unconditional good is a good no matter how it was a achieved in a right way or wrong way, when to a ultimate good, is basically pleasure; is good regardless however the good was achieved. Kant believes that the action of duty has moral worth and if we were to avoid the doubt and have the lack of belief of our ethics, it must be rational based, unconditional.…

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The will to do good is always good and this is not to get something out of the will to do good. Kant expressed that acting from the good will is the only way to be moral. It’s not the consequences from the actions that matter but to do them for the right reasons to begin with. The only genuinely good actions are out of respect for the moral rules. Acting in anticipation from reward or punishment are not moral acts.…

    • 1112 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Happiness, Aristotle argues, is a complete and sufficient good (Aristotle 's Ethics). This means that happiness is desired only for itself, that the sake of nothing else is the reason for desiring it, that it is without evils, and it satisfies all desire. In this logic, moral virtue is not the end of life, that for which all is aimed, since misery and inactivity may accompany moral virtue. Thus, happiness is the best good. To be complete, happiness is an activity which involves both moral and intellectual reasoning.…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The moral worth of an action is measured in the intention. If the intention was right the action is just, regardless to the consequences. Further, he argues there is no such thing as a moral act without a good principle who guided it. Though, while good will is necessary, Kant make another distinction between good will that comes from our senses, to an act from a sense of duty. While the former is lesser because it means that we did not fully freely choose to act upon it, the latter is the one we should aspire to.…

    • 913 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays