The Aquinas Thinking of Ethics: Promoting Equality and Goodwill in Society - Research Paper Example

Introduction Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant did a significant amount of work on moral philosophy. Kant was a believer that moral requirements are based on the standard of rationality which was referred to as the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). His arguments concerning ethics and moral value were deontological and his work on ethics is referred to as Kantian Ethics. Aquinas shared many views with Aristotle. His thought regarding ethics is based on the Cardinal values of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude. His work gave rise to the philosophical school of thought referred to as Thomism. This paper will highlight and analyze the similarities and differences between Kant and Aquinas’ concepts of ethics and the moral value of actions. The positive and negative aspects of both concepts will then be analyzed for their application to a culturally diverse society. Agreement in Thoughts Both Kant and Aquinas attach a great significance to the role of practical reason in ethical life. Among other similarities in thinking, both philosophers emphasize on the importance of law in ethics and both make claims that certain kinds of actions are good and evil in them selves (Hinton, 2002). Practical reason refers to the general human capacity for resolving through reflection, the question of what to do. It considers a set of alternatives to determine what ought to be done (Wallace, 2003). Kant and Aquinas agreed that ethics are derived from practical reasoning and suggested that this concept allows one to distinguish good actions from bad ones. Emphasizing the importance of law in ethics, Aquinas establishes the concept of Natural Law which refers to ones compliance to the order of reason which directs the will. Kant focuses on the concept of Universal law emphasizing that one is obliged to conform to duty by laws that be relevant to us. Despite the many similarities in thought both Aquinas and Kant differ significantly in many concepts. Differences of Thought The dissimilarity among the concepts of right the thinking of Aquinas and Kant emerge the very basic level of the fundamentals of ethics. Aquinas held that what is good should always hold superiority over what is right. Kant on the other hand discarded this dogma with his own core concept of ethics. He believed that what is right should always hold priority over what is good. His concepts of ethics were based on the thought that moral obligation should be consequential of nothing other than duty. Kant believed the notion of duty to be supreme. For him an action held no moral importance if it was not backed by the motive of duty. Aquinas and Kant’s principles of ethics also differed in terms of the principle of moral laws. Kant felt that moral law is a standard of rational and cannot be supported on reliant essentials about what will result in happiness. Aquinas held that an act can only be considered good if it executes the will of God. He believed that good and moral activities pursued the purpose of happiness, which cannot completely be found in this temporary world. Another difference in thought is that Kant believed that actions being right or wrong are not determined by the outcome of the act. In fact they are judged by the motivation of the one who carries out the deed. For Aquinas, the perception of virtue and ethics in order to establish the moral value of an act is that, it is essential to consider both the intent and the circumstance surrounding the action. Analyzing the Concepts I feel the positive elements in Kant’s deontological system can be applied to everyone everywhere under all situations. If something is considered moral a person is required to do it without giving consideration to what they want to do without submitting to their own desires, it would be executed as a mere duty. Every individual under particular circumstance would be expected to act morally on the basis of duty to do the right thing. This concept treats everyone equally and lays down rules of duty which every individual is to follow. The negative aspect of Kant’s thoughts regarding ethics is that it does not assume the consequences of the actions. According to Kant’s view of morality a person is obliged to do whatever is right without giving consideration to the consequences which the action might result in. This concept cannot be applied fully to life since life is far more complicated and the outcome of situations is every essential to consider since no two situations are alike and they call for different actions to be taken. This may even cause issues when an individual is faced with the dilemma of two clashing duties. Kant’s philosophy on ethics can is difficult to accept for a free culturally diverse human community since it does not actually take the diversity of culture into account. It does not recognize cultural obstructions and the fact that the same moral principles are not applicable across every culture. Conclusion Kant and Aquinas both have their own versions of the moral doctrine. There are some basic similarities in terms of the significance of practical reason and law to ethics, but the fundamental principles for both are quite distinguished. Both have different ideas regarding how to determine what is morally right and the actual moral value of an action. Kant believes that obligation is derives solely from duty, and that one should do what is right without considering the consequences. Principles of categorical imperative are obligatory regardless of ones desire to do otherwise. Aquinas on the other hand believes the concept of doing good as coming before that of doing what is correct. According to this principle when one sees good, he must desire to go towards it. In comparison the Aquinas thinking of ethics, Kant’s thinking has some positive points such as promoting equality and good will in society. However Kant’s universalisability aspect the approach makes it difficult to apply to the culturally diverse society, by not recognizing the diversity of culture and moral values for each. Reference Jay Wallace. Practical Reason. 2003. November 30, 2009 Robert Johnson. Kants Moral Philosophy. 2008. November 30, 2009 < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/ > Timothy Hinton. Kant and Aquinas on the Prioirty of the Good. Philosophy Education Society Inc. 2002. Immanuel Kant & Lara Denis. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Mississauga Canada. Broadview Press. 2005. Thomas Aquinas & Richard Regan. The Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance. Indianapolis, Indiana. Hackett Publishing. 2005. Read More