Ethical Views of Philosophers - Literature review Example

Ethical views of philosophers From ancient times, different philosophers have been found to concur and as well as disagree concerning various topics touching on mankind like happiness, character, duty, highest good and virtue. Each one of them presents their own ethical views and argues in support of them. One of the issues that is discussed by the philosophers is happiness. Philosophers like Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and Mill holds to a different theory over this human issue. Happiness can be analyzed ethically from a subjective or objective perspective. Hence it is not just some sort of feeling. Aristotle According to Aristotle, happiness is the highest good that a man can obtain and is achieved by action. Aristotle agrees that there are many good things apart from happiness. What makes happiness stand out as the highest good is that it is pursued for its own sake. It is an end in itself, sufficient and cannot be utilized beyond itself. For example, you cannot seek happiness so that you get a job. Other good things are pursed for the sake of other things or as a means of obtaining something else. For example, pursuing a job so as to be economically stable or get a social class. Hence this job must be utilized so as to obtain the economic stability desired. Aristotle’s theory is based on the reason that each man is aiming at some end. It is this desire that initiates every of their actions. Therefore, living an active virtuous life is the only way to get closer to this desired end. However, these actions are not the ones that will bring happiness. They are just a means of striving towards it. According to him, happiness is some good in which ethical life is centered around hence no one action brings happiness. It differs for each person, for example, for a poor man, their view of happiness is in riches. As for the rich or when the poor man becomes rich, the focus shifts to honor or power. Therefore, the circle is viscous but finally reaches an end (Ostwald 259). Aristotle differentiates happiness with pleasure. A pleasurable life cannot be equated to a happy life. This is because happiness is acquired by virtuously exercising reason. To support this, he argues that human beings are rational compared to animals hence they can differentiate between pleasure and happiness. Aristotle argues that happiness is achieved by acting out of virtue. One’s moral actions should lie between the two moral extremes. Men are also supposed to seek truth through contemplation and philosophy. They can do this by utilizing logic and observing nature, Aquinas Aquinas holds to the same view as Aristotle that happiness is the highest good. According to Aquinas, there is a natural and supernatural happiness. Supernatural happiness is only revealed by God. Aquinas also believed in happiness that is achieved as a result of contemplation. This brings a person to know God and His divine nature. Aquinas did not support the view that philosophy and theology must be separated. Though he agrees that we cannot explain faith intellectually, he argues that we are capable of using our intellect to get an insight of God as well as gaining knowledge. Aquinas’s main point of view is that rationale and revelation are two complementary tools that should be used to pursue happiness. However, he admits that it is hard to achieve natural and supernatural power here on earth. He says that most people will only obtain the natural happiness and only few will be able to obtain the supernatural happiness. This is because all people have the power to obtain natural happiness. This is done through human faculties. He also explains that supernatural happiness is obtained when being a super saint and attaining moral virtues. However, most people are not able to sustain the intellectual capacity necessary for being a saint and being virtuous on continual basis (Baumgarth and Regan 302). Mill Mill utilizes a utilitarian idea in explaining happiness where the outcome of happiness determines its moral worth. His view is that the highest happiness is the greatest number. This is the aim of personal conduct. Therefore our actions should be able to contribute to the greatest happiness. This gives room for debate on whether to conform to a general rule of conduct, for example truth. If conforming to it will give maximum happiness, it can be applied as a rule of thumb and if not we reject it. Therefore any action that promotes happiness is proportionally good and any which promotes unhappiness is wrong. The utility test can be applied to social and political institutions and the family. Mill stresses on freedom of opinion and individualistic lifestyle. Mill differs with Aristotle regarding pleasure. Mill believes that pleasure constitutes happiness whereas Aristotle separates the two. According to mill pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Therefore happiness in essence is intended pleasure and lack of pain. Therefore, lack of pain and pleasure are the only two things desirable as ends. This means that we cannot claim to be happy where the two lack. This contradicts Aristotle’s view of happiness as the highest good and desirable end. According to Mill, the terms happiness and desirable are synonymous. He also argues that to imply that something is desirable and pleasant are the same thing. This supports his argument that pleasure greatly constitutes happiness (John 264). These pleasures are not just enjoyable sensations but a token of anything desirable or worthwhile. Happiness is also a token of the good things in life. This is because people desire other things apart from happiness for example virtue. However he states that the pleasures of the mind have more value than physical or emotional pleasures. Mill opposes the argument that virtuous individuals lead more happy lives than those who lack virtue. He highly esteems the gains of pleasure than the inherent value of virtue alone. Though he values pleasure, Mill admits that happiness is not mere feelings of pleasure. Rather, it is a kind of ideal human life. This involves the utilization of faculties that are highly conducive to the dignity of man. Hence it involves the development and exercise of unique and greater human faculties (John 270). He agrees with Kant in the view that combination of the pursuit for happiness and living a morally upright life is a continuous game. Kant Kant also held a utilitarian point of view regarding happiness. he gives a subjective approach to happiness. According to him, happiness entails satisfaction of every inclination or desire of a person. Therefore happiness is proportional to the number of inclinations satisfied. These include extensive, intensive and protensive dimensions. Kant opposes the pragmatic rule which guides on what to do so as to become possessed by happiness. On his side Kant sets the moral/ethical law. According to him, it is not just enough to be happy. One should also be worthy of happiness. He argues that we should not only consider our desires or how to satisfy them. Rather, we should also consider how we should behave so as to deserve happiness. Kant also opposes the principle of private happiness. He says that this principle opposes the principle of morality Kant differs with Aristotle who claims that happiness is the highest good. According to Kant, the highest good is the result of an ethical wish. However, happiness is passive. It does not provide motivation to act morally. The pursuit of happiness simply gives a virtuous disposition. He places more importance on the process in which happiness is obtained than the amount of happiness achieved. According to Kant, we can compare happiness with a bull’s eye in the dartboard called life. In this case, the arrows for hitting the bull’s eye are morality. Therefore, happiness is just a dart throw away. According to him, the combination of the pursuit for happiness and living a morally upright life is a continuous game. One gives morality so as to take happiness. The outcome depends on the view point held (John 270). From these arguments, the deontological system as supported by Aquinas and Aristotle ethical systems is better than the utilitarian system supported by Mill and Kant. Utilitarianism places more emphasis on the results of actions and gives less attention to the intention or desires that motivate them. This may justify bad actions, for example killing a thief, as long as the results are too heavy to outweigh the actions. It is more of consequential. The Aquinas ethical system stands out from the rest. He places more value on the intention without sidelining the means of achieving it. In this case emphasis is placed on morality as a means of achieving the desired thing. It is based on reality not metaphysics. According to the utilitarian group, the moral worth of happiness depends on its usefulness in maximizing utility like pleasure and knowledge. Hence the outcome of happiness determines its moral worth. On the contrary, deontologists like Aquinas and Aristotle argue that the motive, which is happiness, is more important than the action itself. The concept of happiness needs to be analyzed with care because it constitutes an essential part of human life. Perspectives that undermine morality should be avoided. Works cited Ostwald Martin. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. New Jersey. Prentice hall, 1999. Baumgarth William and Regan Richard. Aquinas, On Law, Morality, and Politics. (2nd Ed) Indianapolis. Hacket, 2002. John Troyer. Bentham and Mill, The Classical Utilitarians. Indianapolis. Hacket, 2003. Read More