The Better Morality: Kant and Aristotle on Happiness

Morality has been a term of debate for several years by intellectuals who have not come to the final conclusion of its definition. According to Damon (5), morality is an existing, multifaceted construct that may not be pinned down by any single definitional criteria which is flexible. The moral character

The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) generally emphasize the necessity of morality and reason when it comes to certain actions. In his Moral Philosophy lecture, he discusses the essential human action of sexual desire and impulse. When reading Of Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse, Kant describes why sexual impulses are immoral and how marriage is the only condition under which sexual impulses are permitted. Kant is right about certain sexual impulses being immoral but sex only after marriage isn’t as common as it used to be in his day and age. In this essay, I plan to argue how Kant’s views on moral and immoral sexual impulses are still present in today’s society but have changed over time. I am convinced that this is

Anuradha Singh Ethics Fall 2014 Comparison between Aristotle and Kant 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.

In the text, Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, but translated and edited by Roger Crisp, a few questions stand out for consideration. “What is happiness?” “What makes me happy and why?” In this text, Aristotle examines the main factors of happiness which consists of gratification, the life of money-making, the life of action, and the philosophical life. He explains what is needed for happiness and what it means to be a truly happy human being. In his definition of

Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of that happiness as a path, a direction. Plato’s philosophy revolves around the attainment of eternal knowledge and achieving a metaphysical balance. Augustine also emphasizes one’s knowing the eternal, though his focus is upon living in humility before God. Both assert that human beings possess a natural desire

In our society today, we are mostly challenged by two questions: ‘is it right to do this or that? And ‘how should I be living in society?’(Bessant, 2009). Similar questions were greatly discussed in the history by our ancestors in their philosophical discussions. The most ancient and long-lasting literature on moral principles and ethics were described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. He had an excellent command on various subjects ranging from sciences to mathematics and philosophy. He was also a student of a famous philosopher. His most important study on ethics, personal morality and virtues is ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’, which has been greatly influencing works of literature in ethics and heavily read for centuries, is believed to be

Happiness is an absolute state of mind, where a person can realize the ultimate contentment in their life regardless of circumstances. Happiness is the end of every desire, after which nothing is desirable. Socrates believes that happiness is a concept of morality and the stable state of ones’ mind, which is non-dependable on the material goods, resources and circumstances. Whereas Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, states that “happiness depends on our self”, where both the material satisfaction and internal satisfaction is required to relish the human life in a happy way. Both philosophers are stressed upon the ultimate satisfaction of life and ‘supreme goods’. The only major difference between the Socrates and Aristotle’s definitions

This is supported by a passage from the text. Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

Aristotle believes that happiness is an activity “in accord with virtue.” Happiness is in accord with the most excellent virtue. All men agreed that happiness is to “live well”, but Aristotle expands this further into a whole

How does one define happiness? For many people, this question makes people think what exactly it means to “be happy.” Many philosophers have different views on the definition of “happiness,” but one that strikes several scholars is Aristotle’s view on happiness. Aristotle believes that happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue. This stems to another question, what is virtue? There are two types of virtues; intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtues engage in your mental capacity and moral virtues are the balance or imbalance of the morality of a moral decision. To achieve perfect virtue, moral virtue needs to have a balance, in which a feeling of emotion is rationale, with not too much or too little of that emotion (Aristotle, 11). Aristotle’s view of moral virtue is evident in several novels and films, but more noticeable in the classic film The Wizard of Oz. In the film, The Wizard of Oz, many characters experience feelings of emotion where they have too much, too little, and balanced feeling of emotion. All in all, several characters in the film The Wizard of Oz apply different feelings of an emotion, such as confidence, compassion, and courage throughout the story, resulting in showing Aristotle’s view of moral virtue as a plausible theory of a path to happiness.

Aristotle and Kant on Happiness, Morality and Normative Force 1. Do you think Happiness no matter how formulated is the purpose of our lives? Defend. For most of us, achieving some state of Happiness is a core objective. Indeed, in a great many of the philosophical musings on the very purpose

The definition of happiness has long been disputed. According to Aristotle, happiness is the highest good and the ultimate end goal—for it is self-reliant. This idea contradicted other common beliefs and philosophical theories. Aristotle opens his work by describing the various theories, neutrally examines each idea, and discloses how he thinks the theory is wrong and why his idea of happiness is more accurate.

The Role of Happiness in Kant 's and Mill 's Ethics Corey Guitard (0241740) Introduction to Ethics November 18th, 2015 Philosophy 2701 Dr. Rupen Majithia Words: Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctually moral without giving thought to the overall happiness. On the other hand, Mill does in fact use happiness as the bases for his ethics. He proposes that actions are right if they promote overall happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness (Mill, ). In this paper, it will be argued that Mill 's views on happiness are more reasonable than those of Kant 's because happiness should be the base for ethics.

Aristotle v. Mill: The Debate On Happiness Is there really one definition for what it means to be truly happy? A simple joy such as a piece of candy may bring happiness to one; whereas something much larger might be the determining factor for another’s happiness. The definition of happiness is one of the most debated questions among many different philosophers and people through out the ages. Aristotle and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers who had similar ideas regarding the definition of happiness, but argued different theories on what constitutes happiness and what is required to be truly happy.

Happiness is the fundamental objective of life. This bold statement is unanimously agreed upon among generations of people on every corner of our planet. However, the real question that has been contested for centuries is the true meaning of happiness? The true meaning of happiness is one of the most