The Aristotle And Immanuel Kant - 1655 Words

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. In this paper, I will present a similarity and difference between Aristotle’s concept of a virtuous act and Kant’s discussion of dutiful action. In The Nicomachean Ethics, The source of a virtuous action happens when your passions and thoughts are balanced. It is balanced when there is†¦show more content†¦Furthermore, Aristotle believes when the virtuous person does an action only through the sake of it self there is no other means to the end and one will eventually become virtuous. However, when the action is preformed for the sake of something else, then a person will not reach the highest form of virtue. The reason for this is when the action that is preformed for the sake of something else, then it will not reach complete happiness because it will always desire more. Therefore, happiness is the highest act of virtue because it is the only end in every action we preform. A person that preforms an action for the sake of being happy requires many steps to eventually reach the stage of happiness. When there are steps involved to reach happiness, then the action is preformed for the sake of something else and not in itself. Such as a person who wants to eat healthier because their end motive is to be happy. Therefore, the action is not preformed for the sake of just to eat healthy but to reach happiness. However, to become virtuous, a person will preform actions that make them virtuous with a firm and unchangeable character. It is a skill that is made through a habit, Aristotle states, â€Å"legislators make the citizens good by preforming habits in them†(NE, P.23), such as preforming acts of bravery. But, a brave person needs to find a balance because being too brave will lead to excessShow MoreRelatedAristotle, Immanuel Kant And Kant2637 Words   |  11 Pagessuccessfully defined it. The philosophers I chose to analyze are Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and G.E. Moore and all three’s interpretations of what Good is and how does one achieve a good life. â€Å"The good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.† To Aristotle, Good is defined by happiness and the means to which we took to achieve it. This truth is widely accepted, but the issue in this derives from what constitutes happiness. Aristotle attempts to answer this question in Nicomachean. He alsoRead MoreThe Ethical Theories Of Aristotle And Immanuel Kant1910 Words   |  8 Pagesand contrast the ethical theories of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant. The moral philosophies of Kant and Aristotle are dissimilar in the rationale they suggest for moral conduct. Theorists suggest what they believe is a normative ethical approach, which should be utilized as a guide to determining moral conduct. Kant bases his opinions of morality completely on reason, while Aristotle treated the virtuous person as sensing good about being good. Kant and Aristotle share the opinion, that ordinary humanRead MoreThe Principles Of Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, And Immanuel Kant1555 Words   |  7 Pagesbeing true and false. Modern logic descends mainly from the ancient Greek tradition. All three philosophers; Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, and Immanuel Kant theorized the question of what is logic. The greatest and most influential of Platos students was Aristotle, but the works of Aristotle do reflect his teachings from Plato but unlike Plato, Aristotle was concrete and practical. Aristotle defined logic as â€Å"new and necessary reasoning†, â€Å"new† because it allows us to learn what we do not know, andRead MoreImmanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Plato, and Aristotle: Morals and Ethical Codes1169 Words   |  5 Pageswithout thoroughly exploring their options. Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Plato, and Aristotle are philosophers that focus on the topic of ethics, yet all have different outlooks. Kant is considered a non-consequentiality, which means he feels the intentions motives, and good will is more important than the results or consequences of an action. The backbone of Kants philosophy is the belief in the fundamental freedom of the individual. Kant did not indicate anarchy, but the idea of self-governmentRead MoreSocrates Plato Aristotle and Immanuel Kant Views on Happiness Government Religion and Objectivity2508 Words   |  11 Pageshappiness, or better yet, where happiness exists is a question that has been pondered by many great thinkers. Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Plato and Socrates had quite a bit to say on the subject. All of these well-known philosophers have a road map to happiness, religion, passion and objectivity. Yet, their theories differ ultimately in how to go about attaining each of them. For both Plato and Aristotle the good appears to be happiness. For Plato, this is where his interpretation of the meaning of EudaimonismRead MorePhilosophical Analysis of Aristotle883 Words   |  4 Pages Philosophical analysis of Aristotle Many theorists consider Aristotle to be the first person to use the term â€Å"ethics† in naming the field of study that had already been subject to develop by his predecessors Socrates and Plato. Philosophical ethics attempts in offering the rational response to the questions regarding how the human beings live. Aristotle used to be regarding politics and ethics as two related but very separate field of study because ethicsRead MoreKant And Aristotle s Views On Ethics And Morals1480 Words   |  6 PagesProfessor Strom Philosophy 300 Class Section 1200 Recitation-Tuesday 10am 2/11/2015 What Is The Highest Good? 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 successfulRead MoreComparing Aristotle And John Stuart Mill1130 Words   |  5 Pagesconcentrate of the famous works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. After meticulously analyzing each of the above philosophers’ texts, I personally prefer the position of utilitarian and Benthamite, John Stuart Mill. After comparing and contrasting the positions and reasonings of these philosophers, I will demonstrate my own reasons why I have chosen John Stuart Mill as the most established in his theory of the role of pleasure in morality. Aristotle was a particularly influentialRead MoreSolving Ethical Dilemmas Essay1501 Words   |  7 Pagesethical interpretations of philosophers Aristotle, Benedict de Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, and myself will be addressed regarding this particular dilemma. Aristotle sought a philosophy of happiness which would be applicable to each individual man. He believed virtue is never absolute. In other words, one rule can never apply to all men. Instead, the individual through lifes experiences must find the source which brings him the most happiness. More importantly, Aristotle reasoned that this source would neverRead MoreGrounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals And On Groveling By Immanuel Kant891 Words   |  4 PagesImmanuel Kant discusses the second and third translation pieces in â€Å"Key Selections.† In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and On Groveling, Kant explains that humans have an animal-like nature. If Kant was charged with the statement, â€Å"Bottom line, humans are nothing more than insignificant creatures with an animal nature,† he would have a mixed response to the charge. Although Kant may not believe that neither humans or animals are insignificant, he would recognize the relation and similarities