Comparing The Theories Of Aristotle And Kant's Theory Of Ethics

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

Aristotle and Plato both said that there are four "natural virtues": Justice, Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. These values are all necessary to achieve human flourishing. Another key part of Aristotle’s ethic is what he referred to as ‘The Golden Mean’. He believed that a virtue can not necessarily be viewed as a virtue when it is used in excess. For example, courage is a virtue, but in excess it becomes rashness, a vice rather than a virtue. Moreover, when there is a lack of a certain virtue, this is also considered a vice. Aristotle's ethic is based primarily on balance. There cannot be too much excess or too little of the virtue. Thus, he said: "The mean [i.e. the balance] is successful and commendable. Virtue then is a state of deliberate moral purpose consisting in a mean that is relative to ourselves, the mean being determined by reason, or as a prudent man would determine it.”

Aristotle’s work, The Nicomachean Ethics, consists of numerous books pertaining to Aristotle’s Ethics—the ethics of the good life. The first book discloses Aristotle’s belief on moral philosophy and the correlation between virtue and happiness.

When we talk about whether or not a person is ethically right, we can look at the actions that he or she may partake in. These actions maybe studied in different situations such as the one that we were told to evaluate. While leaving the grocery store, one witnesses an old man struggling with his oxygen tank. Without thinking, you lift the tank and help the elderly man. This action is a kind gesture, but would we consider this a moral act? One could analyze this situation with two different ethical theories, by Kantian and/or Aristotelian views.

Here, Aristotle reasons that one’s character is derived from actions they complete over and over again, ironically, much like the monotonous daily life of Phil Connors.

Aristotle’s form of ethics, known as virtue ethics, focus on the idea of these virtues. Happiness,

Ultimately, Kant’s famous utopia of Perpetual Peace comes from the idea that all humans would follow their ethical duties, in their own state and between states and they could thus live in a logical, rational world (Kant). Although there are some differences between Plato and Kant on Ethics, one can easily identify that the key elements that form the foundation of their ethical theory is remarkably similar. Indeed, Plato had a sense of duty within his understanding of Ethics and formed his judgment of actions based on one’s intention. Very similarly, Kant believed in the categorical imperative, which also has to do with duty and found the only possibility for unconditional goodness in the will of actions. However, the differences in the period of time of the theories are made evident by the philosophers’ way of describing duty, as duty for the purity of the soul for Plato, and of one’s personal duty of “practical reason” for Kant.

This approach takes into consideration an individual’s character as the main point behind ethical thinking. Instead of just evaluating whether or not a person followed the right rules (Deontology) or obtained the right results (Consequentialism), the Virtue Theory maintains that the their individual character plays into the actions. Aristotle was a supporter of this theory and believed that people’s characteristics are individual and therefore, they cannot be understood as a larger community. With the idea of Virtue Theory, Aristotle developed the Golden Mean which explains that one should have the desirable middle between two extremes of moral virtues. The Virtue Theory focuses on an individual’s character which serves as the key difference between this theory and the

Aristotle and Immanuel Kant have some obvious commonalities. They are both great philosophers and have brilliant theories about morality and virtue. However, there are also many variations between the two great men. To be specific, Aristotle and Kant differ on many of the intricacies and components of their theories. Here, you will find a brief analysis as well as a thorough comparison of Aristotle’s work on living a moral life, along with Kant’s, in regards to happiness, reason, and free will.

In Book III Chapter one of The Nicomachean Ethnics, Aristotle has his explanation of the meaning of the voluntary act and involuntary act. He thinks the criterion for judging whether a man should be held accountable for one of his actions was whether he had acted voluntarily.

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

Aristotle’s basic understanding of incontinence is to act against a considered judgment about a particular situation. According to Aristotle, the incontinent individual “seems to be the same as as one who abandons [rational calculation]” (1145b13) In this view “the incontinent person knows that his actions are base, but does them because of his feelings” (1145b14). Meaning that the incontinent individual acts in accordance with appetite due to a lack of control over himself and non-rational desires. Aristotle claims the idea of incontinence to be problematic.

Since the beginning of the human’s existence, there have been so many great different concepts from various philosophers that have shaped the structure, knowledge and behaviors that we still exercise in our current world. Philosophy as the fundamental nature of knowledge has contributed to the development of our thoughts and the structure of our societies. Many great philosophers left the presence of their idea implanted in our world for the rest of human life. One central leader that contributed in the philosophical views of ideas, realism and morality of life was the greatest philosopher of all time “Aristotle”. This essay will focus on two of Aristotle’s major impact on today’s society. These two great essays are, “The Politics” and “The Nicomachean Ethics”. Aristotle influenced by previous work from his professor the great philosopher Plato developed ideas of moralities, virtues and ethics of how man should best live, how can we find the truth also how can we explain the world around us. Throughout history there have been many philosophers who have tried to shape the world with their philosophical concepts to make an action a universal law of morality that gives us options to choose a freely moral or legal alternative rather than another one. The concepts revealed by Aristotle’s work have inculcated the way we actually behave and apply ethics to our everyday duties that would lead us to the supreme good “Eudaimonia” ‘Human Flourishing’, happiness. All theories

Aristotle and Heidegger have contrasting theories about ethics. As Heidegger wrote his theories two thousand years later, it comes to question, is Heidegger is just contrasting Aristotle because as later stated it is hard to achieve both theories at the same time. Aristotle main points are trying to pursue excellence with reason and Heidegger compares one 's authentic self and inauthentic self. This paper is discussing each philosophical theory pertaining to ethics and how these two philosophers relate to each other.

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics he accounts that humans should make sacrifices and should ultimately aim first and foremost for their own happiness . In the paper I will argue that it is really in a person’s best interest to be virtuous . I will do this by first describing Aristotle’s notion on both eudaimonia and virtue , as well as highlighting the intimate relationship between the two . Secondly I will talk about the human role in society. Thirdly I will describe the intrinsic tie between human actions . Finally I will share the importance of performing activities virtuously .