Kantian And Aristotelian Analysis

The challenge of determining what is considered morally permissible is daunting. Perhaps even more intimidating is conveying which people are worthy of the most moral praise; in other words, deciding which people who commit moral actions actually deserve the moral worth to be had from those actions. There are two views precisely on this idea that I will analyze. The first view, associated with Kantians, is based on duty, (Kant, 320) while the second view, associated with Aristotelians, is based on virtue (Aristotle, 130). The view generally associated with Kantians and the view generally associated with Aristotelians both have their similarities and differences; those which make them appealing, and those which make them clash with one another. In this paper I’ll argue for reasons why the Aristotelian view is more capable of accurately describing who the most impressive moral agent is overall. First I’ll briefly describe each of the views with a little more depth. The Kantian view to describing the most notable moral agent is quite simple: the view suggests that the most impressive moral agent is the one who acts out of duty—one who acts out of some moral obligation—as opposed to someone who acts out of inclinations, such as instinctive reactions or emotions. The Aristotelian view, on the other hand, suggests that the most impressive moral …show more content…
Instinctively, without much thought, Sarah sprints to the child and shoves him out of a vehicle’s way, saving the child’s life. This act was very brave—you could even say it was virtuous—even though it was instinctive, and so to the Aristotelian view, Sarah would be considered the most impressive moral agent. However, according to the Kantian view, because Sarah hadn’t given much thought to her duty in saving this child’s life, she acted on inclinations, and so this does not make her the most impressive moral