Kant Vs Aristotle Essay

Only when these two aspects of the soul are engaged can one be closer to achieving happiness. Aristotle refutes elitist thinking by stating that all people have the capacity to reason within the soul. The good and bad characteristics in people come from the kinds of activities that they desire to undertake. Aristotle also generally defines the good life as simply doing what one wants to do, but happiness can only truly be achieved when one desires to do the correct things.

Aristotle starts off in his essay explaining the definitions of Good, Primacy of Statecraft and the study of Ethics. He defines good as where all things are to be aimed, for example health. He then defines Statecraft as citizens of a state, a country, and of the world need to do good for their own good but more importantly for the good of the state. He also characterizes various types of good. Finally, the definition on study of Ethics. This talks about the pure excellence of justice that involves the disagreements and agreements of uncertainty and certainty. Aristotle also talks about happiness and where a certain

Throughout this Book 1, the discussion digresses multiple times to explore the method by which the topic will be examined. Realising that concepts such as happiness are subjective, he establishes in the third Chapter that the fruits of the discussion will be satisfactory so long as it holds true universally. He also considers in Chapter four whether the discussion should originate from the principles, or from our experiences, and suggests that we should being from things known and immediate to us, which seems to be a logical choice as the discussions as a whole focus on what a man should do in order to act according to virtue in order to become good and attain happiness. In addition, the sixth Chapter is devoted to criticism of the theory of Forms. Since good can exist in so many different ways, but are undoubtedly good, Aristotle argues that there is no common idea governing it. He also denies the existence of separate Forms that are merely mimicked by what we perceive, since a thing and the Thing Itself has the same

Aristotle’s work, The Nicomachean Ethics, consists of numerous books pertaining to Aristotle’s Ethics—the ethics of the good life. The first book discloses Aristotle’s belief on moral philosophy and the correlation between virtue and happiness.

Aristotle and Kant's views were extremely different. Aristotle believed that it was a moral action and Kant believed it wasn't. These two views are so different because the bases of each theory are very

The philosophers Aristotle and Immanuel Kant express the sources of virtuous and dutiful actions in a similar, yet different way. Both philosophers agree that an action has moral worth, when it is preformed for its own sake. However, the difference contains a more significant meaning. Aristotle believes that pleasure can be included when preforming an action; while Kant believes that a duty is preforming the right action without the need of inclinations.

The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that

Aristotle was a particularly influential Grecian philosopher and student of Plato who lived from 384BC- 322BC (ADD CITATION). Within Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle outlines the thoughts of the general population along with his regards and rationales in explaining many philosophical premises. But to concentrate on how Aristotle feels about the role of pleasure in morality, Aristotle introduces the idea that “most people think happiness involves pleasure.” He goes on to interpret the roles of different pleasures and their virtues and vices, giving examples such as as bodily pleasures and soul pleasures.

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.

The aim of this essay is to examine the following question. Does it make a difference in moral psychology whether one adopts Aristotle's ordinary or Immanuel Kant's revisionist definition of virtue as a moral habit? Suppose it is objected, at the outset, that these definitions cannot be critically compared because their moral theories are, respectively, aposteriori and apriori, and so incommensurable. Two points of commensurability and grounds for comparative evaluation are two basic problems that any theory in moral psychology must address. They are moral ignorance (I don't know what I ought to do) and weakness (I don't do what I know I ought to do).(1)

Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.

Plato was among the most important and creative thinkers of the ancient world. He was born in Athens in 428 BC to an aristocratic and well-off family. Even as a young child Plato was familiar with political life because his father, Ariston was the last king of Athens. Ariston died when Plato was a young boy. However, the excessive Athenian political life, which was under the oligarchical rule of the Thirty Tyrants and the restored democracy, seem to have forced him to give up any ambitions of political life. In 388 BC he journeyed to Italy and Sicily, where he became the friend of Dionysius the ruler of Syracuse, and his brother-in-law Dion. The following year he returned to Athens, where he devoted his

Aristotle believed that the goal of all human life is to achieve ultimate happiness. Happiness is the final Utopia or the end of “a life worth living.” Human instinct is characterized by achieving personal fulfillment, thus leading to happiness. Aristotle warns against going astray and “preferring a life suitable to beasts” by assuming happiness and pleasure are equal. Living a life preferred by beasts incapacitates a person from achieving the end Utopia. Even though Aristotle does not equate the two, he does stress that minimal pleasure is required to achieve happiness. Someone lacking in vital necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter are not capable of achieving happiness due to their lack of pleasure.

ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people —  For Aristotle, if we behave ethically we ensure our own ‘fulfilled’ and ‘virtuous’ happiness in the long-run —  For Kant, we have ethical responsibilities due to the ability to reason: ‘categorical imperative’