Model Tok Presentation

Ideally, Kant argues that one should act as though he or she was lawmaking member of “a kingdom of ends”. This argument emanated from his belief that the moral fate of all the individuals in this world was held together. Also, human beings are ends in themselves and as a result, this linking makes them a community that should be weary of their moral actions. This final formulation, therefore, sought to establish that individuals should not just act to gain from these actions but they should all along ask themselves if such actions have any contribution to the moral community. In addition, they should assess their actions to establish whether they affect this moral community either negatively or positively. Finally, he opines the actions taken by a person should be acceptable and rational in the eyes of moral agents in the society (Satkunanandan,

Some philosophers stressed that the ethical action is that that provides the most good or does the least harm,

Aristotle – Virtue EthicsMill – UtilitarianismKant – DeontologyConsequentialismNodding – Care Ethicswhat would you say is our principal or highest objective by nature?

This paper is meant to compare and contrast the ethical theories of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant. The moral philosophies of Kant and Aristotle are dissimilar in the rationale they suggest for moral conduct. Theorists suggest what they believe is a normative ethical approach, which should be utilized as a guide to determining moral conduct. Kant bases his opinions of morality completely on reason, while Aristotle treated the virtuous person as sensing good about being good.

The choices we make in life are guided by ethical theories we adhere to. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are two systems that provide a way to approach life decisions, big and small. Utilitarianism, nicknamed “The Greatest Happiness” states that the ethical choice is the choice that yields the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Kantian ethics, also called duty ethics, explains that for any action, people must act according to common principles, with no significance placed on the outcome. The ethical theories, utilitarianism and Kantian ethics both promote objective good but differ greatly in the process for evaluating the morality of our actions.

Kant introduces the concept of categorical imperatives, which are maxims that can be considered to be universally true and applied to everyone. With that in mind it could be said that one’s maxim should not follow self love above duty, but duty above self love. Therefore actions that only benefit the agent themselves, but cannot be universally applied to all should be rejected for they do not fulfill the qualifications of a good will.

Aristotle and Kant are both poignant philosophers of their times, each with different views. While they both make arguments on the topic of moral motivations, they have drastically different interpretations of morality. Aristotle believes that virtue is the key to happiness and Kant argues that motivation does not make an action moral. These arguments show just two of the many interpretations of morality, and while they are very different, share some commonalities. The arguments illustrated by both philosophers both have the underlying idea that morality stems from goodness and doing the right thing, even though they both have different approaches to that idea.

How should one live? This question has troubled philosophers for millennia, with many attempts to definitively answer this. This essay sets out to explore two of these perspectives; Aristotelian virtue ethics and Kantian duty ethics. Moral philosophy is to depict the absolute ideal (Sullivan, 1980), Aristotelian virtue ethics argues that a virtuous eudemonic life constitutes a moral one. Kant differs; morality is rational and the categorical imperative it to be abided by to live as such.

These maxims are unifying moral laws to provide one with tools for enacting moral duty through one’s actions. While these laws emphasize the importance of rationality, consistency, respectability and impartiality necessary to live a moral life, Kant’s moral views transcend all contexts and all societies denying any room for deviation within moral reason and lacking any formidable middle ground. By only providing hard truths to these three maxims, Kant counters one’s happiness in opposition to morality. Moreover, when utilizing Kantian ethics, one is exerting cognitive efforts to arrive at a rationalized moral conclusion, thus having “one thought too many” (Wolf 431). Kant’s moral duties have no limit to the extent that one may follow, thus they may dominate one’s life as one strives perpetually to become further virtuous.

Ethics. The highest end a man can attain is happiness. To Aristotle “Happiness is an

In this paper, I will compare the theories of Aristotle and Kant on the basis of ethics. I will be examining Aristotle’s theory of virtue in which his focus is “What is a Good Life” and Kant’s theory of deontological ethics in which the moral worth of an action lies in the duty upon which moral actions are engendered.

The latter—‘what ought I to do?’ is the central subject of ethics,or what is variously called moral philosophy or philosophy of morality. With the concepts of ‗right‘, ‗duty‘ and obligation‘ and responsibility, we move into the science of ‗oughts‘ that define the moral foundation of human society and the stability of its social fabric. The Kantian challenge here is that before we can build a morally

As time goes by, respect is being lost and forgotten. Even the definition of respect seems to be a bit muddied. Many people are forgetting the one golden rule that still applies. The golden rule being treat others the way you would want to be treated. People nowadays tend to turn respect towards things that are worthy of praise and they are forgetting to keep the same respect to everything else. No matter the color of someone’s skin, the religion they believe in, and where they come from everyone deserves and should get respect, in Confucius’s teachings, as a basic human element and many Asian countries, respect is a major characteristic and etiquette that people are learning and quickly forgetting.

Kant’s ethics formulation is based on categorical imperatives (CI) that bind us to fulfil our duty regardless of our desires, circumstances, and even interests. These imperatives are based on reasons or motives to act benevolently. Decision-makers have an obligation to sue rational decisions by virtue of being rational agents. CI tackle universalizability, humanity as an end in itself, the formula of autonomy, and the Kingdom of Ends. Merely, an action must pass the three imperatives to be taken, and people are acting purely morally based on rational will in lieu external influences.

The Aristotelian ethics seeks Eudaimonia or what is call happiness. This is the goal of every human