Aristotle and Kant's Philosophies of Life - Essay Example

Running Head: PHILOSOPHIES OF LIFE Topic: Philosophies of Life Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction The question of the meaning of life is the most fundamental in human existence. Often, individuals ask themselves such questions as the nature and purpose of life, and the value of life. It is certain that one day, each and everyone will die only that the time is not known hence the question, if we have to die, why do we exist? Now that we exist, what are we supposed to do and is there life after death? What is the difference between life and existence? These questions are difficult to answer with certainty but philosophers have over time tried to understand and explain the meaning of life. There is also the question of what is morally right or wrong or what is good or evil in society. All over the world, atrocities are committed against human beings by other human beings such as the Rwanda Massacre that left thousands dead. Such actions are considered as evil but there is a degree to which actions are evil; some people commit evil acts due to mental illness or to safeguard the nation while others do it deliberately. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant believe that evil is a “self-serving choice that individuals make freely even when they know the moral law they ought to be following” (Rosenstand, 2011, p. 6). According to Aristotle, the pursuit of happiness is the highest good achievable through reasoning while others believe goodness is inherent in human beings. The paper is going to discuss two ethical writers and their philosophies on the meaning of life and compare them to own thoughts. The two great philosophers and ethical writers to be discussed are Aristotle and Immanuel Kant. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and a student of Plato whose major writings have had a lot of influence over the years. He is one of the founding figures in Western philosophy and has written on several disciplines including politics, government, ethics, and metaphysics among others (Eagleton, 2007). Kant on the other hand, is a German philosopher who has written various works on ethics, law, history, and religion. H is also a major contributor to the development of philosophy. I chose the two philosophers because their names are familiar and in the course of my studies I have read some of their work which is interesting and influential. Aristotle in his work describes man as a political animal by nature while Kant is a great critic of rationalists such as Rene Descartes. Their ethical theories are of great help in understanding the meaning of life especially what is meant by good or evil and what makes life great or worthy living. Ethics tries to answer questions about ourselves such as, what are we like, how we should order our lives, what goals we should seek and what should count to us most (Engel, 2002). The sort of life that human beings live provides the answer to the meaning of life. For Aristotle, the one goal that people aim at achieving hence a meaningful life is happiness and also asserts that nobody can be happy without being good (Eagleton, 2007). He thus declares that the pursuit of happiness is the ‘Highest Good’ achievable through our human capacity to reason. As such, his theory of ethics is centered on the study of goodness and happiness which results into evil or moral deeds. People in this case have an intrinsic good and an external good as means of achieving the intrinsic good. For example, one needs to have certain attributes such as beauty so as to be happy or have the resources required to do fine goods (266). Regarding how to conduct life, men unlike animals have the capacity to reason hence develop rules of life that they ought to follow and have the ability to control emotions or passions. However, reason is not inborn but learnt gradually through experience and he refers to it as moral virtue. This enables an individual to have a good character and according to Aristotle, the moral qualities are the ‘golden means’ between two extremes of vice and defect and since mean is difficult to achieve, it follows that it is difficult to be good hence being good is an achievement that makes life worthwhile (Engel, 2002). To be happy therefore, and attain a meaningful life, people have to learn to control their emotions. For example, the student who murdered 32 students and a professor on April 2007 at Virginia University could be presumed as evil since he was not able to control emotions leading to depression and considered his life or existence worthless hence he also killed himself (Rosenstand, 2011). Contrary to Aristotle’s view that ethics is about how to make ourselves happy, Kant believes people should seek to do what is right regardless of whether it will bring happiness to him/her; doing what is right is an obligation. He is thus concerned about how individuals can be worthy of happiness and not how to make themselves happy (Engel, 2002). For example, during natural disasters like the hurricane Katrina, some people sacrifice their lives to save others and also offer help and support to victims as an obligation hence the can be viewed as morally worthy or good. The Professor who gave up his life to save the students from murder can also be regarded as good; his act gave meaning to his life. According to Kant, this is made possible by possession of ‘Good will’. For Aristotle, being good means being able to control emotions but for Kant being good implies doing selfless deeds as a duty. People possess good qualities given to them by nature such as intelligence, courage, health but without a good will to guide their use, they may turn into bad or evil. For example, people may use intelligence to organize criminal gangs such as the Al Qaeda which bombed the US on 9/11, 2001 leading to loss of lives. Kant also asserts that the will to act follows dictates of pure reason. People do not do things they want to do or because they will get recognition or personal gain in doing so but do moral acts since pure reason demands it (Engel, 2002). For him, it is only such actions that deserve moral worth; other actions may be morally good but not worthy of praise since they are not guided by pure reason. E.g. helping the poor because one wants to, is good but doest deserve praise but if helping the poor arises out of an obligation, then it deserves moral praise. It also involves use of categorical imperatives; one ought to do right thing without conditions. However, rational actions should be universally valid; must be consistent regardless of situation. A rational action by one person is emulated universally hence it should be consistent thus if one lies to save a life, this means lies are universally acceptable and applicable to everyone equally hence Kant doesn’t approve of such actions. Possession of reason gives humans absolute worth; however, they must be free to do what reason demands. Aristotle and Kant agree that rational aim in life is to achieve the highest good which is happiness or meaningful life. Thinking about what is moral or immoral, good or evil, why things happen such as disasters, death of loved ones and why we exist is often in my mind. Since childhood one is taught on what is moral/immoral or good/evil especially through stories at home or in school hence one always strives to do what is good or moral. However, one is faced with difficult choices between doing what is right or wrong; e.g. we are taught lying is wrong but sometimes we are forced to lie to save a friend or ourselves. Some people would argue that lying to save someone is acceptable but Kant would dispute this as it would set a bad precedence and inconsistency. The use of technology such as films to impart morals is not helping as it spurs more violence and people use some of these characters as role models (Rosenstand, 2011). I also believe in helping people if one has the means but not as an obligation as depicted by Kant. For example, for the professor who died to save students, he was not obligated to do so but he did so since he wanted to do it and therefore deserves moral praise. It is also difficult to determine whether a mentally disturbed person committing murder is evil just as is deliberate murder by a healthy person (Rosenstand, 2011). I agree with Kant that evil is a personal deliberate choice hence one cannot be condemned for actions not controlled by his will due to mental illness. In studying Aristotle’s and Kant’s philosophies of life, it is apparent that morality is a complex issue and not simple as I thought. Many people believe in doing what the society, church, or colleagues approve whether it is right or wrong but Kant gives a clear understanding that we should strive to do good without expecting anything in return and not for our own happiness but taking it as an obligation to others so as to gain moral worthiness. Aristotle also has a great lesson about controlling our passions by possessing moral virtues thus be happy in life. Treating other people with respect and not using them as means to an end is also essential. References Eagleton, T (2007) The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press Engel, M (2002) The Study of Philosophy. 5th edn. San Diego, CA: Collegiate Press. Rosenstand, N (2011) The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics. 6th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Read More