Aristotle and Kant: Comparative Analysis of Ethical Philosophy - Essay Example

Aristotle and Kant: Comparative Analysis of Ethical Philosophy Aristotle and Kant are two philosophers that are well known in the field of ethics. However, before critically analysing the two philosophers accordingly to their philosophical framework, it is better to have a full grasp or understanding of societal contexts where they are confined. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, has formulated his ethical thought during the Greek period that became one of the foundations of the contemporary philosophical thought. Kant, on the other hand, has worked out his philosophy during the period of Enlightenment wherein there is already an advancement of knowledge system. Firstly, what is the most common between the two philosophers? It is mainly the thought of the good. The assessment of good in this case adhere to a more individualistic approach that values more the importance of doing what is right on the part of the individual. Aristotle, in his case, asserted that the idea of good can be questioned if it validity is indeed valid like one person getting what he needs for being excellent in doing something (Ross 5). In this case, the very foundation of doing something that is good, whether in thought or form, is basically on gaining happiness or pleasure (Ross 6). In this paradigm of Aristotle, there is a dominance of a very hedonistic approach towards human attitude on things. Kant, on the other hand, highlights the importance of will as one of the factors that greatly influence human activity (Gregor 52). In this case, Kant points out that reason provides a crucial role for the occurrence of human activity which will eventually result into good or bad depending on the circumstances that surround the matter of the act (Gregor 52). Presumably, humans, through their rational thinking, allow them to decide what they will do. There is a presence of impartiality in terms of the manner of thinking because this requires a thorough deliberation of the outcomes of the matter. Synthetically, what seems to be relation of these two paradigms presented by the philosophers? By careful observance on a very practical level, there is nothing wrong for humans to seek pleasure and gratification on their part when it comes to choosing things that will indeed be beneficial for them. However, there is also an implication that the actions that we choose can eventually have a drawback on others even if we desire gratification. This highlights that the individualistic and hedonistic tendencies of humans will be beneficial for them but will not always be beneficial for others. In the real world, how do these paradigms of Kant and Aristotle apply on a very synthetic level? Take a look for the example, the increasing gap of the rich and the poor. There is nothing wrong for the rich to fully assert his desires and wants to live a hedonistic life. The same way that the poor is not even prevented to desire a good life. However, due to economic imbalance and instability, there is no chance on the part of the poor to attain his desire and the rich will continually exploit what he has. On a moralistic level, this kind of act cannot be fully considered as something moral since there is suffering. This suffering is the main line of difference between the two philosophers since there is a relatively different approach coming from both of their moral paradigms. Aristotle deals with desire as something that is normal for humans to do since it is already an inherent and intrinsic capacity on their part (Ross 26). This desire allows humans to attain their needs and wants to live a life that is good and pleasurable for them. However, Aristotle also pointed out that is still the human’s choice whether he will seek and assert his desires (Ross 26). The capacity of thinking provided by choice implies that the act of humans can have a relatively different impact because it can be good or bad. The unexpectedness of the outcome of a certain act can be questioned ethically. Therefore, despite of the intrinsic nature to be hedonistic, it is still the choice of humans to do so. This scenario highlights the condition that humans must be fully aware of the context of their hedonistic acts and must be keen to their outlook on things to prevent the occurrence of troublesome ones and prevention occurs by the manner of choice. On the part of Kant, he has a very different approach on desire. For Kant, desire can prove to be problematic on the part of humans since there is a possibility of the occurrence of a problematic condition once desire is not fulfilled (Gregor 61). This desire appears to be the gateway to the very innate hedonist nature of humans. However, desire also gives a reason for humans to be highly conceited and ambitious once these desires are fulfilled and will continually act in accordance to the fulfilment of their desires. Kant challenges the notion of desire since it can lead to suffering of man (Gregor 12). This has become possible since non-fulfilment of desires would invariably provide a condition for humans to seek ventures and commit acts that are relatively problematic and intolerable. This is relative true in most cases since this has opened the eyes of the people to the current social condition of the world and provides a venue to discuss the problems that have long been neglected to discuss that are related to human desire which have placed other humans at risk. Despite of this difference between the two philosophers, their approach on certain things is still commendable and can be tackled on a very synthetic level. For Aristotle, it is the choice of humans to seek their desires (Ross 26) and Kant asserted that desire is the detrimental factor of human thinking that gives rise to suffering (Gregor 12). How is the synthetic analysis possible? First is that it is the choice of humans to live out a lavishing and a very hedonistic lifestyle which can be good or bad for them yet they cannot blame anyone if they suffer from non-gratification and non-fulfilment of their desires. This only shows that humans must be responsible of their acts and must not blame others for the failure of it since they are the ones that have chosen to explore these ventures in which uncertainty dominates yet they pushes their limits for the sake of satisfaction. This can be regarded to be somehow utilitarian in approach since there is a need to maximize avenues for hedonistic acts. There is nothing wrong with this on an individualistic level as long as there is intrinsic consciousness on the part of the individual to understand that there must be compliance to the responsibility that comes with it. However, on the facet of social level, then there is indeed a problem to these hedonistic tendencies because this gives a reason for humans to suffer on their own. This suffering occurs due to inequality that exists between humans especially in fulfilling the needs and wants that they have yet their status in the society does not allow them to be so. Going back to the example of the rich and the poor, it is already clear that the rich ones gets more and more ambitious as long as they keep on satisfying their wants. This makes them greedy and this attitude has displaced most of the people in a state of desolation and a greater gap between the rich and the poor that has existed for a very long time increases further which evokes greater complexities on individuals and society in the long run. Given the two scenarios of the philosophers, one thing is made clear. Humans must learn to be at least sensitive and considerate of their acts and be responsible for the effect of it. There is nothing wrong to desire, to want and to need things for happiness yet one must realize the importance of choice and a deliberative assessment of it. Choice gives us the freedom to do what we want yet we are all aware that freedom is not absolute. It must not be abused but rather it must be valued. Being responsible and sensitive is important to fully understand the innate human complexities that come along the way. This will eventually leads us into living a morally balanced life that shows concern not just for the individual but also for the society. WORKS CITED Ross, W.D. Nicomacheaen Ethic by Aristotle. MIT Classics. 24 Nov. 2011. Gregor, Mary. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press. 1998. PDF Read More