To Begin, Aristotle And Kant’S Distinction Regarding The

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.

According to Aristotle, the virtues are an instrumental part of achieving eudaimonia (or happiness/human fulfillment), however, they must be practiced in moderation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also discusses virtues as being an instrumental component "in leading a morally good life" ("The Virtues") but differentiates itself from Aristotle because there is no limit to how virtuous a life a person of the church can live. The Catechism states that "The goal of a virtuous life is to become like God," ("The Virtues") and although that is an impossible task, it is encouraging people to reach for their full potential stating that no person can live too virtuously. Aristotle disagrees with this argument.

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

What is the central difference between metaphysics as Kant conceives it, and metaphysics as Aristotle conceives it? Argue in support of one or the other view.

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

Immanuel Kant was a famous philosopher whose philosophical influences impacted almost every new philosophical idea, theory, concept etc. In a sense, he was considered the central face of contemporary philosophy. Kant spent his whole life in Russia. Starting out as a tutor, to then a professor, he lectured about everything; from geography to obviously philosophy. In his early life, he was raised to emphasize faith and religious feelings over reason and theological principles. As he got older though, that position changed. It then became that knowledge is necessarily confided and within the bounds of reason. Now with this in mind, Kant claims many different things that derive from this. There are many different parts and aspects to it which is why it relates to almost every philosophical idea out there. Kant referred his epistemology as “critical philosophy” since all he wanted to do was critique reason and sort our legitimate claims of reasons from illegitimate ones. His epistemology says that we can have an objective, universal, and necessary knowledge of the world, and that science cannot tell us about reality. He claims science cannot tell us anything because it only tells us about the world as it is perceived, whether it’s based on measures, manipulations, experiments and so on. Kant says that we all have knowledge; that the mind and experience work together and that we construct and gain this knowledge by both reason and experience.

Moral virtue is acquired through the habituation of good acts which constantly aim for a mean between excess and deficiency in each circumstance. It is the choice of moral virtue through our acts, which allows us to satisfy a major requirement for happiness. Virtue, for Aristotle is a state in which reason helps us decide to do good acts. This is a part of our natural function as human beings, since reason is our distinguishing characteristic and good is the always the object of “correct reason.” The habituation of good acts, then, is what leads us to states of virtue in our lives. Since action always implies either pleasure or pain, it is our job to maintain the appropriate amount of each in the things that we do.

Aristotle and Kant's views were extremely different. Aristotle believed that it was a moral action and Kant believed it wasn't. These two views are so different because the bases of each theory are very

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

Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming

During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be

Virtue tends to be the mean. Living in the mean allows for pleasant feelings and lets one feel value in the life one lives. Aristotle provides a useful example through the virtue of courage (37). Excess courage leads to reckless or foolish behaviors. A deficiency in courage causes cowardliness. Pain and pleasure are involved in these extremes. Enduring danger without pain is courage. If a person feels pain while facing danger, he will be called a coward . Pain typically indicates that one is not acting within the mean (37). Pleasure can also be an indicator of straying from virtue, but this does not always occur. Confronting danger while feeling joy is also courage, not recklessness (37). Virtue is not a feeling by itself (37), but it leads to feelings. Virtue “makes us act in the best way in matters involving pain and pleasure” (38). One must fight the feelings that lead to bad deeds. Fighting pleasure, however, is much more difficult than fighting pain (38). Humans are reflexively drawn away from pain. When a person steps on something sharp, a reflex triggers in the body that pulls the foot away from the source of pain before the signal has traveled to the brain. Because pain and pleasure are so interconnected with virtue and moral excellence, a person’s reactions to these feelings must be examined to determine their moral character. If a person has the right attitude

Unlike happiness, virtue is not an activity, but a disposition and a state of being. More precisely, it is a disposition to behave in the right manner. In Aristotle’s description, virtues are the “means” and intermediate states between what he considers vicious states (excess and deficiency). In other words, they are the moderation of desiring too much and desiring too little. For example, the state of being courageous is considered a virtuous disposition because it moderates the states of being cowardly (deficit) and rash (excess). Furthermore, Aristotle describes the virtuous person as one whose passions and deliberation are aligned; someone whose possession of goodness allows their acts to be guided by the balance of their “means” and their rationality. This means that to achieve a virtuous state one has to consistently aim for the “mean” of their actions to the point where it’s instinctive. (Nic. Ethics II 6).

To Aristotle, ethics is not an exact science, it’s ruled by broad generalizations that work most of the time and are found with those of experience, the men of practical wisdom (Nicomachean Ethics, 1094b15-1095a10). We don’t need a focused study in the sciences to understand the good, all one needs is a proper understanding of how the external aspects of life: friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth operate in concert. No aspects of friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth ought to be practiced too much (excess) or too little (deficient); moral virtue is action performed between two extremes (Nic. Ethics, 1106b5-25). And it is by consultation that one may find the middle ground between excess and deficiency, The Golden Mean (Nic. Ethics, 1097b5-20; Nic. Ethics, 1104a10-25).

Another part of Aristotles' theory includes the idea of virtue. From my understanding, Virtue of character has a lot to do with our actions. It looks at what makes us do what we do. He explains, “Virtue, then, is of two sorts, virtue of thought and virtue of character” (Aristotle 18). In order to reach eudaimonia, we have to act virtuously. That is done by doing the right thing and knowing that you are doing it. Virtue of character is something that we do not automatically just have. It is something that we have to work on and practice. With practice, right actions will become habits. The virtuous person is someone who does not have to think about what the right thing to do is, they just do it.