The Ethical Theories Of Aristotle And Immanuel Kant

In this unit of Morality and Ethics, we examine Immanuel Kant’s theory of ethics and its relationship and compatibility with several religious ethical approaches. As we learn from W.D. Ross’s book “The Right and the Good. Oxford,” Kant lived a rigid life in Konigsberg, Germany and he was a deontologist, thus rejecting the teleological position of determining to act based on consequences. Kant rejected the “theological

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.

Hobbes and Kant both give a different account of the foundations of morality. Drawing from Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I will compare their understanding of the foundations of morality. I will discuss the conflicting accounts of the role played by reason versus the role played by desire and inclination in the determination of what is good, evil, right or wrong. Hobbes claims that ordinary experiences establish human beings as self-interested and are driven by desire or aversion and that is why morality is grounded by subjective self-interests. On the other hand, Kant provides a purely rational principle for ordinary views about unconditional moral value, morality has a universal law that applies to all rational beings at all times. The following paper will identify and explain the key points and sources of difference between Hobbes and Kant. First, I will explain both understandings of morality. Second, I will describe how the account of the foundations of morality differs in human nature, rationality and conceptions of morality. I will, in conclusion, argue that Hobbes’ account of morality best works with our ordinary experiences and moral convictions.

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.

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

Each individual justifies their actions and wishes by appealing to various moral principles based on the local or individual conception of the good. In the argument of morality and where are those moral judgments come from, brings us to the central question of ethics, that is “What is the good for human beings?” More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle gives his answer in Nicomachen Ethics suggesting that the purpose of morality is to enable us to lead good lives, and it is necessary to acquire virtues to achieve the good. However, this view of ethics based on virtues led to a relativism toward the notion that believes the criteria of ethics is tied up with virtues which the local and individual approves to be good. In other words, the conception of goodness is based on the tradition or custom of the local society/groups or the individual. Therefore, many suggest that the high degree of individualism that was shown in Aristotle’s virtues ethics theory proves that he supports cultural relativism. In this paper, I will defend Aristotelian ethical approach based on virtues and refute relativists argument by showing the objections that against the local ethical objectivity.

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.

The theory of ethics explore through various topics of human behaviour, involving the constructive guidance of concepts that are right or wrong in one’s performance. Many philosophers argue that people should be just and ethical because it is the only source of true and lasting happiness. Meaning, ethical people are happy people. This ethical theory of happiness is further studied through countless philosophers, but the two main thinkers that will be specifically researched are Aristotle, a continuing figure in ancient Greece philosophy, and Epictetus, a Greek Stoic philosopher. Within the two, both believe human action is the main goal in reaching happiness such as the good habits, so called “virtues”, but with two different beneficial views. Another interesting theory they come across is the intention of being rational towards a decision. Lastly, the main difference between the two theories is how one will be able to achieve happiness, as one focuses more to be virtuous and sacrificial and the other seems to avoid pain and endures in pleasure. As two philosophers go in depth in the same topic of the search of happiness, this paper aims to portray the similarities and differences each theory have.

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

The physician should be honest and open before the patient give consent to have a cerclage and any treatment afterward. The physicians should be considerate of the patient's feeling, therefore he/she should be as sensitive and supportive as possible. The patient should be provide the information in order to make the right decision. Obviously there are reasons to question the moral value in this case since lying and deception can occur. But it should not be the decision-making in this case. Of course, honest is the fundamental ethic in this case (Drane, 2015).

What is the appropriate action? It is a controversial question that is a focal point for moral and ethical codes. Morals and ethics is, of course, a subject that runs deep in the discussion of philosophy. People are faced with moral dilemmas everyday, which many times society decides without thoroughly exploring their options. Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Plato, and Aristotle are philosophers that focus on the topic of ethics, yet all have different outlooks.

This paper offers an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in order to argue that both of their moral theories are two different ethical principles. Nevertheless, many of their reasonings are applied in moral debates and are relevant in today’s society. Both of these philosophers brought back moral philosophy and provided different approaches on how an individual should follow moral principles. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Kant’s moral philosophy, such as context of right and wrong, the meaning of the text, and provide evidence that these principles is applied in today’s moral debate. Then, I will discuss Bentham’s moral philosophy using the same steps of analysis.

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

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)

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.