A Comparative Analysis of Aristotle and Kants Ethical Theories - Coursework Example

A Comparative Analysis of Aristotle and Kant’s Ethical Theories One of the perennial questions in moral philosophy is the question: “What are right actions” (Chaffee 474)? In this essay, I shall survey the moral and ethical theories of two prominent philosophers, namely, Aristotle and Immanuel Kant. Although the two philosophers differ in terms of their approach, both aim to provide an answer to the aforementioned moral question. On the one hand, Aristotle gives emphasis on moral virtues, while Kant gives emphasis on moral maxims. Emphasis on moral virtues is discussed under the category of virtue ethics, wherein “the cultivation of a virtuous character, that is, to become a virtuous person, is the goal of ethics” (Chaffee 475). While emphasis on moral maxims is discussed under the category of deontology, which is “the ethical view that the moral value of one’s action is determined by fulfilling one’s duty” (Chaffee 486). In the next section, I shall discuss the key elements in Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics There is a fundamental question, which dominates Aristotelian ethics: what is the good? Like all movement, human actions also have an end, and this end is what constitutes the good. Herein, Aristotle points out that all men desire happiness, which is the last end of man; the true good. These true goods can neither be external nor corporal; they can only pertain to the soul. Thus, a contemplative life, as contrasted to a life of pleasure and fame, is the proper source of happiness. For this reason, true happiness can only be attained through the contemplative activity of the intelligence. Thus, for Aristotle, happiness is the activity of the soul; “living life in accordance with reason and virtue” (Chaffee 477). But first, what is virtue? The virtue proper to man can only be found together with the activity of reason. Thus, happiness is the “activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational principle” (Korsgaard 489). Since three parts of the soul can be distinguished, only two are attributed a kind of virtue, since the vegetative soul is common to all living beings and is not specific to man. Thus, Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of virtues: ethical / moral and intellectual virtues. Ethical or moral virtues consist in controlling the irrational tendencies proper to the sensitive soul, while intellective virtues correspond to the rational part of the soul. According to Aristotle, the moral virtues are neither an innate effect of nature not contrary to nature. Man is predisposed to acquire them through the constant repetition of their corresponding acts. What nature gives us are the inclinations and potencies that we subsequently have to actualize: “we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts” (Aristotle 29). This brings us to the importance of Aristotle’s emphasis on virtue. Aristotle emphasizes that moral virtues cannot exist where there is either excess or defect. Virtue involves a right proportion, a right mean between two extremes; this is known as his doctrine of the Golden Mean (Chaffee 480). Virtue then would consist in the right mean between the two extremes, as related with right reason. Right reason is that which points out the extremes of defect and excess that have to be avoided in order to attain the just mean. Moral virtue can thus be defined as the just mean which reason applies to our feelings, actions and passions, so that these operations do not tend towards either extreme of excess or defect. In other words, moral virtues are habits, voluntarily acquired through the repetition of acts and constituted by the just mean established by the right reason of a prudent man (Aristotle 28-34). Aristotle gives prudence an important role since it is inseparably linked to all the moral virtues. The virtue proper to practical reason is prudence, while wisdom is what is proper to theoretical reason. If the virtues point out the end of human action, prudence shows the means to attain it. Therefore, “it is not possible to be good in the strict sense without practical wisdom, nor practically wise without moral virtue” (Aristotle 158). Kant’s Moral Philosophy Kant’s moral theory is linked to his idea of freedom. For Kant, freedom should not be construed as a license but as rational freedom, that is, freedom accorded with the dictates of human reason. This type of freedom is elucidated in his theory of the Good Will (Chaffee 489). According to Kant, there are many elements which can be deemed as good, such as character, intelligence, charisma, dexterity, diligence, and so on. However, these qualities are not necessarily good. For instance, a bank robber can use intelligence in concocting cogent strategies to unlock a bank vault with swiftness and precision. Sales persons can employ their charm to persuade their clients to purchase defective products. Based on this, Kant argued that the foundations for morality couldn’t be based on the said elements but rather on a Good Will. To his view, a good will is good in itself; it is intrinsically good. This appears to be analogous to the inherent value of a jewel. Case in point, whether the price of the jewel increases or decreases, its intrinsic precious nature remains constant. Given this, a Good Will is one, which is independent of any external conditions or personal inclinations. It is therefore, good in itself, without any qualification (Johnson, “Kant’s Moral”). In addition, Kant’s idea of a Good Will is elucidated in his concept of Duty. To his view, a Good Will is one, which acts for the sake of duty. He defines duty, as “the necessity of acting from respect for the law” (Kant 61). So whether the law works in your favor or not, you must follow through with the respect for the law. And this to Kant is good in itself. In line with this, he made a distinction between acting in accordance to duty and acting for the sake of duty. To his view, the latter are actions that have moral worth. The former however, is based on selfish inclination and thus, has no moral worth. Aside from the abovementioned actions, Kant explains another way of determining whether an action is morally good or not. This is presented in a certain principle of action: the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is “a maxim that commands actions that are intrinsically good, not actions that are good as a means to something else. They prescribe ways of acting that all rational beings are morally required to follow” (Chaffee 491). Such a maxim is grounded on reason and is thus, a priori law of ethics. The Categorical Imperative is stated as the following: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature” (Kant 81). In other words, before I will a certain mode of conduct, I should see to it that my subjective maxim or course of action could be universalized as a moral legislation. Loosely speaking, before I act on a certain principle I must reflect and see if such principle is applied on a social level. Now if my desired act involves certain contradictions a priori, then my potential act cannot qualify as a moral law and must be rejected. However, if such principle is devoid of contradictions then, it is one that can be morally acceptable. Analysis and Conclusion Based on the aforementioned analysis on Aristotle and Kant’s ethical theories, I believe that the more significant theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics. This is for the main reason that Aristotle emphasizes on three aspects of life, the contemplative being the ultimate source of happiness. This means that “achieving happiness necessarily involves fulfilling your distinctive function as a human being” (Chaffee 477). Thus, happiness is the end of all human actions, which includes Kant’s act of duty. Thus, it offers a more holistic approach to ethics, which is applicable to any person, regardless of their ethical system. For, isn’t it the case that everyone aims to be happy? Isn’t the case that happiness is the ultimate purpose of all men? We often do certain actions, with regards to our own preferences. But ultimately, we do them in order to be happy, for a virtuous life leads to a happy life, when done in moderation. This holism is, from what I believe it to be, the advantage of Aristotle’s theory. Works Cited Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print. Chaffee, John. The Philosopher’s Way: Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2009. Print. Johnson, Robert. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008). Web. 22 Apr. 2011. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Ed. Lara Denis. Ontario: Broadview Press, 2005. Print. Korsgaard, Christine M. “Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value.” Ethics 96.3 (1986): 486-505. Print. Read More