Surname 5
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
The Superiority of Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics over Kant’s Ethical Philosophy
Ethics is one of the most important disciplines to the human society that has attracted divergent views from different philosophers. Many of the philosophers focused on providing theoretical frameworks from which later generations derive meaning to the various ethical issues facing the society. Among the great philosophers that dedicated their lives to studying ethics are Aristotle and Immanuel Kant. Critically analyzing Aristotle’s and Kant’s approach to ethics one acknowledges the stark differences between the two schools of thought. Aristotle is associated with virtue ethics theory which regards the character of an individual and moral training and accentuates being instead of doing (Papouli 2). Therefore, the virtue theory dictates that for one to be considered ethical, they must be inherently good. Aristotle had a bias toward the inner being which makes his theory agent-based which in turn spills over to interpersonal relationships. Differently, Kant’s ethical theory assumes a deontological nature which hinges on the principles of doing rather than being (Nellickappilly 2). According to Kant, the significance of a “right action” is not because it results in desirable consequences, but it is informed on duty. Analyzing this theory, one recognizes the aspect of categorical imperativeness as an absolute command. The two theorists’ principles differently shape how different people perceive and approach ethics thus laying a foundation for comparing their strengths and weaknesses. Relatedly, in the context of this paper, the argument is that the right actions have to start with the being and therefore one must first cultivate a great character to do right consistently which is the principal pillar of virtue theory.
Virtue ethics theory by Aristotle is normative and primarily focuses on the character of an individual. As mentioned above, this theory is fundamentally agent-based and thus attempts to highlight individuality rather than actions. Papouli (3) notes that Aristotle’s philosophy centers on the implications of being human by bestowing primacy to the evaluation of an individual’s character and motivations. After one analyzes their personality and internal motivations, then they have a basis for determining right from wrong in their action or those of others. In essence, human actions are guided by who they are and their biases which implies that individualism comes before collectivism. In most instances, a person will act in a certain way to satisfy character wants even before thinking about the recipients. Küçükuysal and Beyhan (44) collaborate Papouli’s assertions by writing that it is vital for an individual to focus on developing their character traits which will resultantly influence their actions. When a person nourishes their character, then their actions will align with the expectations of society. Inversely, Kant’s approach to ethics is more inclined to obligations than developing a likable personality (Nellickappilly 3). From the dictates of Kant’s theory, one gathers that ethics are controlled by a moral command which humans are required to follow rationally. Although this theory is based on the principles of goodwill, it is agreeable that an individual has to consciously cultivate a character that allows them to act with the interest of society at heart. Moreover, the rationale on which Kant’s theory is premised must be guided by a person’s inner motivation which gives credence to Aristotle’s philosophy.
A key pillar to Kant’s ethical philosophy is the notion that right actions are not defined by desires but by practical reason. Therefore, for an action to attain the standards of being right, it must have an element of fulfilling duty which translates to acting per certain moral imperatives. Connectedly, Kant ethical theory advocates for the treatment of humans as ends in themselves rather than drivers of good will. Hence, Kant’s philosophy tends to view people as being automated to actualize duty. According to Küçükuysal and Beyhan (44), the applicability of virtue ethics theory is because it recognizes the importance of character in shaping one’s actions. Primarily, one can develop the qualities of a righteous person from within their self which then illuminates to the outside world as actions. Rationally, Kant’s theory has no explanation for the lack of benefits that result from acting as guided by duty (Holberg 227). Unquestionably, motivations influence and emphasize why an individual acts in a given manner and thus it is not possible to disassociate benefits from actions. It is plausible to conclude that perceived benefits influence actions. For instance, in the context of respect, Kant’s central ethical claim restricts the gratifying aspect involved in according another person respect to the level of a byproduct of fulfilling the requirements of duty. For this philosophy to be applicable, one must alienate personal satisfaction from their actions which in all reasons is difficult to achieve. In his theory, Kant, therefore, tends to create a conflict between deliberation and passions with the former being the desired quality of the philosophy.
In conclusion, both Kant and Aristotle gave their philosophical insights into the issue of ethics whereby each developed a theory that guides the perceptions of right and wrong. Even though the two schools of thought have broad applicability in the modern world, Aristotle’s approach seems to have the upper hand against Kant’s rationale. Aristotle theory is based on the premise that human character precedes their actions in that having a good character will translate into good actions. Differently, Kant view holds that a person’s action should be founded on reason rather than personal gratification which defies the individualistic nature of human society.
Works Cited
Holberg, Erica A. “The Importance of Pleasure in the Moral for Kant’s Ethics.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 54.2 (2016): 226-246.
Küçükuysal, Bahadır, and Erhan Beyhan. “Virtue Ethics In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics”. International Journal Of Human Sciences, vol 8, no. 2, 2011, pp. 44-49. Journal Of Human Sciences, Accessed 13 May 2019.
Nellickappilly, Sreekumar. “Aspects of western philosophy.” (2017).
Papouli, Eleni. “Aristotle’s virtue ethics as a conceptual framework for the study and practice of social work in modern times.” European Journal of Social Work (2018): 1-14.