Comparison Between Aristotle And Kant

The theory of ethics explore through various topics of human behaviour, involving the constructive guidance of concepts that are right or wrong in one’s performance. Many philosophers argue that people should be just and ethical because it is the only source of true and lasting happiness. Meaning, ethical people are happy people. This ethical theory of happiness is further studied through countless philosophers, but the two main thinkers that will be specifically researched are Aristotle, a continuing figure in ancient Greece philosophy, and Epictetus, a Greek Stoic philosopher. Within the two, both believe human action is the main goal in reaching happiness such as the good habits, so called “virtues”, but with two different beneficial views. Another interesting theory they come across is the intention of being rational towards a decision. Lastly, the main difference between the two theories is how one will be able to achieve happiness, as one focuses more to be virtuous and sacrificial and the other seems to avoid pain and endures in pleasure. As two philosophers go in depth in the same topic of the search of happiness, this paper aims to portray the similarities and differences each theory have.

I chose to write about Aristotle and his beliefs about how the virtuous human being needs friends from Book VIII from Nicomachean Ethics. In this essay I will talk about the three different kinds of friendship that (Utility, Pleasure, and Goodness) that Aristotle claims exist. I will also discuss later in my paper why Aristotle believes that Goodness is the best type of friendship over Utility or Pleasure. In addition to that I will also talk about the similarities and differences that these three friendships share between one another. And lastly I will argue why I personally agree with Aristotle and his feelings on how friendship and virtue go hand in hand and depend on each other.

In this paper, I will deconstruct and explain Socrates’ argument of that a person with justice in their lives is a person with happiness in their lives. Socrates argues about justice and its presence and how it works in the world, but I will only be talking about justice and its presence in people. He argues that justice the virtue that allows for people to live well and have happy lives though the relationship of justice, souls, functions, and virtues.

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.

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

What is the central difference between metaphysics as Kant conceives it, and metaphysics as Aristotle conceives it? Argue in support of one or the other view.

During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

Concerning the philosopher, the principal factor which coordinates people's decisions towards good or bad actions is a soul. But this process is reciprocal because the soul, in its turn, is forming according to people's actions. The life with the feeling of satisfaction is connected with some level of pleasure; this pleasure, by Aristotle, is the activity determined by virtue. Virtue is a quality of a person's character; it highlights doing any action taking into account both rational

Aristotle’s understanding of virtues is what he describes as a kind of “mean”. This “mean” is the pivotal influence for any and all outcomes when it comes to moral judgment; the “ends”. The structure of this concept revolves around the philosophical idea of Telos, For every class of things that exist they all have their own aim end or goal. Aristotle acknowledges the soul of a human being and even more so analyzes the characteristics of it. The rational, appetitive and irrational each of these chunks, for lack of a better word, defines an action whether it be virtuous or unvirtuous. This “mean” for aristotle would land somewhere between the rational and appetitive characteristics because not all means are realized without some kind of selfish

Subsequently, Aristotle recognizes the good because of pleasure associated with it; for Kant this is insignificant. All that matters is our duty, and all pleasure that comes along with it is not good in itself. However, for Aristotle, the very mark of good action is that we also experience pleasure in doing it--even if the rational principle is the most important part. In the end, Aristotle would probably agree with Kant that it is more important for an action to be morally correct than pleasant. Yet, for Aristotle we must develop habits that lead to a good state of character out of which we act well, whereas for Kant we act well by developing a good will that refers outside of ourselves, to a moral law.

experience” (GGM, Pg. 5, 38-39): This means we have use reason to make our choices rather than looking to our experience or a person who we consider to have reason as with Aristotle. This leads to Kant to explain when an action has moral worth. Specifically, “an action has moral worth when it proceeds from duty, not inclination, that is, pleasure and what we feel like doing” (GMM, Pg. 13-16). He establishes three propositions: “the worth of an action lies in the principle of willing, the outcome or consequence are secondary consequences, and finally, an action must proceed out of respect for the moral law” (GMM, Pg. 13-16). This may very well go against Aristotle’s argument of happiness. When Kant says that “most things are good, but not without qualification or limitation” (GMM,

If a friend and I went to Westworld and my friend were to do things that would be immoral to do to an actual person, I would think they are behaving immorally and I will be using Taylor’s, Kant’s, Aristotle’s philosophies and others to defend my views. I believe my friend is acting immorally because we still have free will, you are allowed to do certain acts that are not illegal but if these acts make you question your morals then you do not necessarily need to act on them. When someone chooses to act immorally, they are consciously and deliberate choosing to do bad things. In Westworld and the real world for someone to act morally their decisions should be from their own free will and from what they believe is right. When I see my friend

Essentially, all philosophers including Kant and Aristotle approached ethics from a specific conception of human nature. While some saw the good life as the realization or actualization of the potential we possess by the mere virtue of being human beings, others thought that man needs a formal standard of moral judgment that can steer them away from moral inclinations. In this paper, I will talk about Kant’s and Aristotle’s views on the matter and how it impacted their respective ethical and moral theories.

There are certain truths of the world that cannot be ignored or overlooked. Many philosophers have spent countless years discussing, debating and evaluating such truths. One such influential philosopher is Socrates. Born in Athens in 469 B.C.E, he spent most of his time at the marketplace and other public places engaging in dialogues about truths of life. Among many other things, he discussed virtue and happiness and how closely they are related. According to Socrates, virtue is absolutely necessary for perfect happiness because virtue brings a type of happiness that other things could never bring. In this paper, I will explain the aforementioned idea of Socrates on virtue and happiness and through evidence from Plato's Apology which is