I chose to get into Aristotle’s head, and examine what his thoughts would be on Kant and Mill’s theories. In a sentence, I think he would say that their theories are a good start, but they miss the big picture. Let’s examine this more in depth now.
As I stated previously, I believe that Aristotle would think that Kant and Mill missed the bigger picture. Why do I say that? Looking at Kant’s duty ethics or Mill’s utilitarian ethics, we see some common themes. Both theories focus on universal principles that can be applied to any situation, and they both use a formula of sorts to do that. Kant’s theory focuses on the law of Categorical Imperative, which he believes is the one law that holds society together on a morality level. This law can then …show more content…
It’s a task that may take an entire lifetime to achieve. Aristotle describes three dispositions, two in vices and one in virtue. Incontinent—giving in to one’s desires with the knowledge they are bad; continent—resisting desires because you know they are bad; and virtuous—transformation of your desires into only wanting what is good (NEET, 14-15). So what about the people who haven’t reached virtuousness, which I think we can agree is most of the population? Since Aristotle’s theory is based on character, rather than ethical principles that can be applied, it would seem that it falls short for the millions of people who’ve not reached the state of virtue that he would deem moral. It is for these people that I think Aristotle would perhaps look for improvement on his theory, and welcome Kant and Mill’s theories. Aristotle may favor Kant and Mill’s theories for the people still working towards virtuosity because they give hard and fast rules for what to do in a situation. People who are still fighting their vices may need that kind of guidance because they wouldn’t have the virtuous nature that eliminates the conflicting feelings between vices and morality. Aristotle’s virtue ethics don’t particularly offer any clear guidance on what to
As I stated previously, I believe that Aristotle would think that Kant and Mill missed the bigger picture. Why do I say that? Looking at Kant’s duty ethics or Mill’s utilitarian ethics, we see some common themes. Both theories focus on universal principles that can be applied to any situation, and they both use a formula of sorts to do that. Kant’s theory focuses on the law of Categorical Imperative, which he believes is the one law that holds society together on a morality level. This law can then …show more content…
It’s a task that may take an entire lifetime to achieve. Aristotle describes three dispositions, two in vices and one in virtue. Incontinent—giving in to one’s desires with the knowledge they are bad; continent—resisting desires because you know they are bad; and virtuous—transformation of your desires into only wanting what is good (NEET, 14-15). So what about the people who haven’t reached virtuousness, which I think we can agree is most of the population? Since Aristotle’s theory is based on character, rather than ethical principles that can be applied, it would seem that it falls short for the millions of people who’ve not reached the state of virtue that he would deem moral. It is for these people that I think Aristotle would perhaps look for improvement on his theory, and welcome Kant and Mill’s theories. Aristotle may favor Kant and Mill’s theories for the people still working towards virtuosity because they give hard and fast rules for what to do in a situation. People who are still fighting their vices may need that kind of guidance because they wouldn’t have the virtuous nature that eliminates the conflicting feelings between vices and morality. Aristotle’s virtue ethics don’t particularly offer any clear guidance on what to