Kant 's Theory Of Nature Of Virtue

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 argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

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.

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.

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.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

In this paper, I will present a similarity and difference between Aristotle’s concept of a virtuous act and Kant’s discussion of dutiful action. In The Nicomachean Ethics, The source of a virtuous action happens when your passions and thoughts are balanced. It is balanced when there is

In the “Metaphysical Principles of Virtue” Kant defines happiness as simply getting what you want; making the fact that it may fail to function as a standard of morality more understandable. There are a few reasons that come to mind as to why this may be true. First, someone getting what they want may prevent others from getting what they want as well, which makes it almost impossible for everyone to be happy. Also, if morality is defined in terms of happiness, not everyone can be moral. This is clear whenever someone seeks to define morality in terms of happiness.

In order to explain the fundamentals of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, one must acknowledge his primary motive in this study, which is to understand what it means to live well. Unlike

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.

The aim of this essay is to examine the following question. Does it make a difference in moral psychology whether one adopts Aristotle's ordinary or Immanuel Kant's revisionist definition of virtue as a moral habit? Suppose it is objected, at the outset, that these definitions cannot be critically compared because their moral theories are, respectively, aposteriori and apriori, and so incommensurable. Two points of commensurability and grounds for comparative evaluation are two basic problems that any theory in moral psychology must address. They are moral ignorance (I don't know what I ought to do) and weakness (I don't do what I know I ought to do).(1)

“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.

Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.

In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?

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 .