Register to read the introduction…
Aristotle:
1. “[W]e always choose happiness as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else.” EN 1.7.1097a33–1097b2. 2. “[H]appiness is a certain activity of the soul in conformity with perfect virtue.” EN 1.13.1102a5; cf. 1.7.1098a16–17; 1.9.1099b26; 1.10.1100b10.
b) Kant and Mill as opposed to Aristotle Both Kant and Mill conceive of morality as fulfilling one’s duty, as following rules. For Kant, one has to do one’s duty for the sake of duty or the law, for Mill, one has to do the duty of increasing the amount of happiness of the largest number of people. Aristotle does not understand morality as above all respecting laws, but as becoming virtuous for the sake of nobility. In Kant and even more so in Mill, it seems that morality means to serve especially the interest of the collective, not one’s own fulfillment and character above all. Kant:
“The third proposition … can be expressed thus: Duty is the necessity of action done out of respect for the law.” GMM, p. …show more content…
“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will. … Thus a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness.” GMM, p. 7:393. 2. “While a will may not indeed be the sole and complete good, it must, nevertheless, be the highest good and the condition of all the rest, even of the desire for happiness. … [R]eason … may in many ways restrict, at least in this life, the attainment of the second purpose, viz., happiness, which is always conditioned. Indeed happiness can even be reduced to less than nothing, without nature’s failing thereby in her purpose.” GMM, p.
1. “[W]e always choose happiness as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else.” EN 1.7.1097a33–1097b2. 2. “[H]appiness is a certain activity of the soul in conformity with perfect virtue.” EN 1.13.1102a5; cf. 1.7.1098a16–17; 1.9.1099b26; 1.10.1100b10.
b) Kant and Mill as opposed to Aristotle Both Kant and Mill conceive of morality as fulfilling one’s duty, as following rules. For Kant, one has to do one’s duty for the sake of duty or the law, for Mill, one has to do the duty of increasing the amount of happiness of the largest number of people. Aristotle does not understand morality as above all respecting laws, but as becoming virtuous for the sake of nobility. In Kant and even more so in Mill, it seems that morality means to serve especially the interest of the collective, not one’s own fulfillment and character above all. Kant:
“The third proposition … can be expressed thus: Duty is the necessity of action done out of respect for the law.” GMM, p. …show more content…
“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will. … Thus a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness.” GMM, p. 7:393. 2. “While a will may not indeed be the sole and complete good, it must, nevertheless, be the highest good and the condition of all the rest, even of the desire for happiness. … [R]eason … may in many ways restrict, at least in this life, the attainment of the second purpose, viz., happiness, which is always conditioned. Indeed happiness can even be reduced to less than nothing, without nature’s failing thereby in her purpose.” GMM, p.