Kant And Aristotle 's Views On Ethics And Morals

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

Kant elucidate the meaning of human good by talking about three qualities: power, pleasure and dignity. By reading each of the philosopher’s text individually, the reader is able to recognize which quality is most imperative to each philosopher. Additionally, each philosopher illuminates the importance of that certain good and provides a feasible reason for their choosing by presenting general ideas that enables the reader to gain a meticulous understanding of their subjective meaning of each good and its importance.

The subject of good will for Kant is controversial. Kant believes that good will is not based on a reaction to the consequences, either negative or positive, merely by the intention of which the act was made. When an action is done in good will, the reasoning is not emotional (Johnson, 2008). It does not done out of sympathy or empathy for the individual, rather by a sense of duty. This is the controversial part because many believe that while good will is based on positive intentions, the act is performed through a feeling of love for the fellow man. Kant believes that good will focuses on all human beings regardless of feelings of love, friendship, bond, hatred, or lack of caring. This is why the best way to describe it is duty. However, Kant was not implying that no other motivating factor fuels good will. He was simply stating that when there is a dilemma that has the individual questioning the good will or morality of a decision that it is best to look at it from an unbiased view (Johnson, 2008). Removing emotional attachment from the situation has already proven to be helpful in making rational decisions in an otherwise difficult moment.

To continue with good will, a sense of duty is different from inclination. Inclination is a human’s feeling or urge to want to do something. An inclination can be considered good but not morally good, not a good will. Kant believes that acts done from sense of inclination should not be celebrated as a good will or “pure”. An act of inclination cannot be considered moral because they are performed without forethought. For example, if you see someone you care about to get hit by a car and you run and push them out of the way, causing harm to yourself, it is not considered a good will. That act was

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant seeks to develop a clear understanding of moral principles. Qualities of character and fortune can be exercised for either good or bad purposes, and only the good will is naturally and inherently good. Humans are at once rational and natural beings; our reason and natural characteristics are distinct from each other. Kant suggests that we must choose either to follow our rational or natural capacities. Although man’s highest purpose may seem to be self-preservation and happiness, as rational beings our highest purpose is to develop this good will. Our instinct leads us to the pursuit happiness and self-preservation, but the will developed by our reason would be good in itself and

Immanuel Kant states that the only thing in this world that is “good without qualification” is the good will. He states the attributes of character such as intelligence, wit, and judgment are considered good but can be used for the wrong reasons. Kant also states that the attributes of good fortune such as health, power, riches, honor, that provide one happiness can also be used in the wrong way (7). In order to understand Kant’s view of moral rightness, one must understand that only a good will is unambiguously good without qualification, it is “good in itself”. To clarify, Kant states that “a good will is good not because of what it effects or

According to Kant’s moral philosophy, a good thing is a good will that stands behind the duty to the moral law. The structure of his law is based on a categorial imperative. The basis of his philosophy is that good is good will. The good will must always be good and maintain moral value regardless of the outcome or result. Actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must come from a place of duty and good motive. He believed that everyone should have dignity and respect no matter what their status in the population may be. Any treatment or action from a physician must be done out of the respect of the patient . This includes that health care providers must fully inform the patients about facts, benefits and harms, or even different treatment options.

Kant believed that no consequence could have fundamental moral worth because the only thing that is good in and of it self is the Good Will. The Good Will freely chooses to do something precisely because it is one’s moral duty, and that duty is dictated by reason.

In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer argues for the utilitarian system of ethics. To thoroughly understand this system, one must first accept the notion that the individual has a moral obligation to prevent something bad from happening if it is in their power to do so. For Singer, there is no inherently good moral compass one must strictly abide by. Actions that are considered good or bad differ based on the situation in question. Contrarily, Immanuel Kant asserts that there is intrinsic good in the world in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant calls this phenomenon the “good will” (527) and claims that this will is always good, even if acting upon it does not result in any positive outcomes. The argument that he makes

In Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that one’s duty requires an individual to act against one’s inclinations, wants and desires, in order to achieve a higher moral worth. For Kant, the concept of duty is something that you ought to do despite not wanting to, assuming the duty is possible. A duty contains the concept of good will, or acting on one’s duty, against one’s inclinations, which is how moral worth is achieved. In order for an individual to achieve a higher moral worth, he must not act out of any inclination beyond his duty. Likewise, an individual should only act on a maxim that at the same time he wills to be universal law, common knowledge, as explained by the categorical imperative

Kant’s states that the good will is “the ability to reliably know what your duty is, and a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake” ( 180). In other words, good will is really understanding what our moral duties are and doing what is right whether it leads to happiness or not. Is it possible for someone to do the right thing and still lack good will. This is possible because people who do the right thing just because it benefits them is not really having good will. For example, in class we have being talking about the shopkeeper who did not overcharge his customers because it was going to bring consequences to his business. His action would not be considered morally worthy or an act of good will because he did

“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)

All humans have some type of understanding of what good will is, as it is a reason or a determination of the proper thing to do at the right time or period. Rather than the human reaction to try and satisfy or make oneself happy, humans would be and should be more naturally inclined to make possible good will and being good which this will bring about unintentional happiness or satisfaction. Then Kant going on to explain that by using reason in a situation, humans would not be able to attain good will as reason cannot be used on a unconditional basis and that would cloud judgement.