Aristotles and Kantian Ethics - Essay Example

Aristotle’s Ethics In his nicomachean ethics, Aristotle believes that pleasure is part of good and virtous life. According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of virtue: moral and intellectual virtue. Moral virtues are not innate according to Aristotle but they are acquired. For instance, an individual becomes trustworthy by acting truthfully. Examples of moral virtues are humility, truthfulness, moderation, and generosity. On the other hand, intellectual virtues are those personality traits that are required for correct thinking and desired action. He classified intellectual virtues as productive such as craft knowledge, theoretical such as wisdom and mind and lastly practical such as practical prudence. Happiness is the central core of living, which depends entirely on cultivation of virtues. According to Aristotle, playing the mean is the way of cultivating virtues that includes moral virtues for the attainment of individual happiness. Playing the mean is the virtue between two extreme excesses and deficiency. For instance, exercising the act of justice in getting too little or getting too much. Therefore, human beings make choices depending on the circumstances that surround them by choosing on one option and neglecting the other. Aristotle believed that task of ethics was to come up with the highest and the best good that is found in human life. Thus, all human activities always aim at some recognized higher end that we always consider as good. Most activities that human beings incur in are a means of attaining a higher end. He discussed the nature of vices and virtues that are involved in evaluating morals, the conditions that ascribes moral responsibility towards an individual agent and the methods that one incurs to achieve happiness in life. Aristotle rounded off his explanation of what constituted achievement of true happiness by human beings. He stated that pleasure is not good in itself because it is incomplete according to its nature. The activities that people engage in are associated with their own distinctive pleasures. Therefore, human beings are directed and guided in nature by their choice or preference for participating in pleasant activities rather than in unpleasant activities. True happiness lies in behavior that leads to virtue, since this alone provides genuine value and not just amusement. In sum, Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of ethic activity because it is self-reliant, complete, and continuous. According to Aristotle, every activity posses a final cause and the aim for the same good. There is no infinite regress that is associated with extrinsic goods and thus there must be the highest good, which all-human activities aim. He referred to this as happiness and the complexities that is involved in actualizing it. Things that are of any variety, acquires characteristic function, which they later perform. Virtues are opposed to intellectual capacity and thus virtues of characters are due to dispositions to act in a given way in response to some similar situations and the habits that one has which makes him behave in a certain way. Good conduct arises from habits, which can be acquired through recurring actions and corrections, which makes ethics a practical discipline. Each virtue is a state that naturally seeks its own means, which is relative. The virtuous habit of any action is an intermediate state between opposed vices of deficiency and excess. In application of this theory of virtue, flexibility is paramount as friendliness is far from deficiency than its excesses. This is because few human beings are inclined naturally to undervalue pleasure thus it is unusual to ignore or overlook either of the extremes but to regard the virtue opposite the other vices. Thus, Aristotle’s ethics is governed at moderate rates, which have dominated the western cultures for a very long time. Ethics being a practical science focuses on human nature, which works on accepting and acting moral responsibility. However, moral evaluation of action presupposes attributions of responsibilities to human agents. This does not apply to all attributions, as responsible actions must be taken voluntarily. Aristotle gave out two conditions under which human actions become voluntary. First, he asserted that actions which are produced by external forces are taken as involuntary which the agent is not fully responsible for them. Secondly, involuntary actions may be one that is performed out of ignorance. Thus, for all decisions to act in a voluntary way, we rely on deliberations about choice among the alternative actions, which an individual could perform. Despite the fact that virtues are habits of disposition, which act in a definite way, Aristotle asserted that these habits are acquired when one engages in suitable conduct on definite situations and that in so doing; it requires that one think about what one engages in doing in a given way. Furthermore, no demonstrative knowledge of sort employment in aesthetics and science judgment in relation to craft is relevant to morality. Thus, the understanding can be applied to exploring origin of things while wisdom traces any demonstrable connections, which are among them. Prudence or practical intelligence is the thinking mode that which provides morality in an adequate way. This comprehends a true character of individuals and the community welfare, which applies the results to guidance of human actions. To act correctly, one coordinates his desires with the correct thoughts over correct ends or goals. Deliberative reasoning considers the extent at which each one of them could contribute towards achieving the appropriate end or goal, engaging in the action voluntarily and making deliberate choices to act in a way, which best fits its end. Therefore, intelligence is the basis of acquiring virtue though it differs from intelligence. Aristotle disregarded Socrates belief about knowledge on what is right always leads to doing the same thing. The greatest enemy of moral conducts is the failure to act well on the occasion when deliberations on what may be wrong. Therefore, incontinent agents do suffer from weaknesses of will, which prevent carrying out measures considering conformity that they have reasoned out. This is failure of intelligence, as the individual may not draw appropriate connections between moral rule and particular applicable cases. The prospect that applies to great pleasures obscures one’s perceptions of what is good. Aristotle refuted that this difficulty should not be fatal towards achieving virtues. The roles of friendship and human relationships are elements of a vital good life. This is because no one would ever choose to live without friends even if he has all the other good things in life. He outlined three types of friendship basing on the intended aims and goals. First, friendship based on pleasure exists when two individuals discovers they have a common interest concerning any activity they wish to pursue unanimously. The participation of friends participating in any activity leads to a greater pleasure to each of the participants than it could apply to an individual person. Another form of friendship is grounded on the utility when two people come up to benefit each other through coordination. The focus is on the benefits that will be acquired rather than enjoyment the two acquire. He argued that friendship that focuses on the good arises when two people participate in an activity develops the goodness of the other. In this case, good is the relevant factor, pleasure, and utility do not apply. Pleasure to Aristotle, is incomplete and thus it is never good in itself. Therefore, valuable activities are associated with own distinctive pleasures. People are guided in life by natural preferences that engage in pleasant activity as compared to the unpleasant ones. Genuine happiness is in action, which leads to virtues because this alone provides the true values and not amusement. Contemplation is the only recognized moral activity due to its continuous, self reliant, pleasant, and complete. Intellectual activities involve human beings approaching divine blessedness and realizing the genuine virtues. Kantian Ethics Kantian ethics are derived from the teaching of Immanuel Kant who was a philosopher. For Kant, the driving force is a determining factor to what can be regarded as ethical. This driving force is known as motive. More so, moral action is not justified if it is done out of sense of pity. According to Kant, moral action should not be based on person’s feelings or pity nor the desire to get a reward but on what you ought to do as a person. For instance, using Kantian ethics to assist a school boy to cross a busy street is due to the pity for him not moral action. However, incase you help the student to cross the street because you have a sense of duty is justified as moral action (Allen 40-43). Motive or driving force is the leading factor in Kantian ethics, therefore there is the possibility of an act having negative aftermath despite being a moral action. For instance, when helping a schoolboy cross the street and in the process, the boy is knocked down by a car; your action still remains to be moral. Kant believed that there are certain like lying, murder or stealing that are not accepted in society even if they are intended to bring joy to society. For Kant, the question that we ask ourselves before making any decision is if everybody will act the way I act rationally and if the answer is no, then the action should not be done. The other question is that; is my actions justifiable to meeting the targets of other human beings or are they just for my own personal satisfaction? If the answer is no, then we must avoid to perform the action (Allen 61-64). Kant believed in supreme rule that he called the categorical imperative that determines our moral duties. In these sense imperative is simply a command; for example when somebody tells you; stop playing that piano! Or don’t beat animals! Kant went ahead and formulated a principle that makes one to be known as a good person. This was determined by certain standards like moral worth of that person; this is the situation a persons action determines his moral worth of doing wrong or right. In Kant principles, the concept of humanity formula is vital as it makes us to recognize and appreciate the existence of other people as human beings therefore they need to be treated with respect. It is not morally justified to see other human beings as means only but as an end to themselves. The main factor to this rule was recognizing the essentiality of human beings. Our humanity is made of different collection of characters that makes us distinct from other people this includes abilities to do certain tasks to achieve our ends (Teale 79-82). Kant ethics also included the formula of autonomy, in this sense we tend to focus most on universal laws such as self interests. This declares that every person need to be accorded his or her personal autonomy to do what interests them. Despite these fundamental principles by Kant, his ethics has been criticized on several situations. For example his approach does not justify some laid down intricate scenarios. For instance if there is conflict of duties: testifying the truth and not revealing your best friends (Teale 144-150).Will you say the truth and save the company from collapsing or protect your friends and leave the company to collapse. Some people have argued that Kant in his teachings dismisses some emotions such pity and compassion as not moral. For example having compassion and helping a schoolboy cross the street is not bad, why it should not be considered as moral. In conclusion, I think Kantian theory of ethics is most likely to be correct. Kantian ethics have been influential in shaping human morality. Humanity has been respected as they are guided by the principles that Kant suggested. In addition, his teachings came to influence the writings of other philosophers who followed him. Work Cited. Allen, Wycliffe. Kantian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Aristotle. Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Print. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print. Press, 2000. Print. Plato. The Republic Of Plato. New York: Basic Books, 1991. Print. Teale, George. Kantian Ethics. London: Oxford University Press, 1951. Read More