Aristotle Vs Kant

For some people, decision making is one of the hardest things to do since so many things factor into a decision: the options, the intentions, the responses, the consequences. The thought process is an endless circle of what-ifs and why-or-why-nots and what-will-happens, but in the end, someone will decide what must be done, how they must do it, and why they must do it. The art of decision making has been speculated by many, including modern philosopher, Immanuel Kant, and ancient philosopher and scientist, Aristotle. Their views on decision making differ because of the era in which they lived in, and so they both have their own opinions on how one can effectively make a decision for the right reason. Though Immanuel Kant and Aristotle have
Eudaimonia is a good that encompasses that of what makes a human flourish: completeness, which is done for the sake of nothing else, and self-sufficiency, which is lacking in nothing. Flourishing means that one has reached the highest good and that they are happy. But reaching the capability of achieving eudaimonia means that the person who reaches it is that of their most virtuous self. Someone who is virtuous has become so by conditioning themselves to choose excellently since “excellence of thinking is for the most part… a result of teaching… while excellence of character comes into being as a consequence of habit, on account of which it even gets its name by a small inflection from habit” (Aristotle 1103a14-19). Having a virtuous character also means that one does not only do the right thing but also feels the right thing at appropriate times. It is here where they recognize that “things such as virtues are of such a nature as to be destroyed by deficiency and by excess… [and so they are] preserved by an intermediate condition”; they are not a person who “indulges in every pleasure and refrains from none… [nor are they] someone who shuns them all, like a boorish bumpkin” (Aristotle 1104a2-27). The virtuous person takes into account the fact that there is a happy middle ground for virtues that is specific to each individual, but
Kant is heavily against living a life that is influenced by self-interest whereas Aristotle believes that achieving true happiness is the ultimate goal in life. With that, the two thinkers present ideas that can help influence someone to live a great life in a way that is specific to them, by letting them follow their self-interest but also by being constrained to the categorical imperative. Essentially, the combination would give the actor leeway to do something in their own personal interest, regardless of if the duty is performed to gain satisfaction from others’ satisfaction or not, so long as it is something unconditionally moral and so long as they are not overly or underly indulgent. The intention of an action would not dignify if an action is morally sound, but rather it is determined by the good within the action itself. There, a person can do something out of the goodness of their own heart, if they choose to, and it would be the moral