Kant Vs Aristotle

Aristotle vs. Kant Ethical Teachings

Central to modern ethical teachings are the views expressed by Aristotle and Kant, whose writings and works have influenced ethical issues over centuries. This essay presents a comparison between the ethical teachings of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant with the use of three concepts presented by Aristotle and Kant which in the context of a contemporary ethical issue such as abortion.

Firstly will consider the philosopher’s views and ideas on living the best possible life (eudaimonia).This will, give the reader a clear comparison between the two philosophers writings.

Secondly, Plato’s form of good will be used to compare the writings of both philosophers, to distinguish the differences between their teleological
Aristotle taught that everyone can derive morality from the concept of eudaimonia (living the best possible life). He believed that eudaimonia was the end towards which all actions were directed and that it should used as a guide when considering how people should act and live. Kant took an opposing view to Aristotle’s idea believing that deriving morality from eudaimonia destroyed morality itself. Kant believed that by Aristotle not distinguishing morality from happiness he put forward an ethical system that was egoistic and hedonistic (Page, 2010). Whilst there seems to be a contrast in the basic teachings of Aristotle and Kant it all depends on whether or not Kant’s interpretation of Aristotle’s eudaimonia was correct. In Aristotle’s work ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ he defines eudaimonia as ‘activity of the soul in accord with virtue, and indeed with the best and most complete virtue if there are more virtues than one’ (Zunjic, n.d.), and he identifies eudaimonia as the highest good as it meets two conditions that must be met in order to be considered the highest good: completeness and self-sufficiency. His work ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ however presents two views on what happiness is, a inclusive conception and a dominant conception. The inclusive conception consists of many different things that are considered to be intrinsically valuable such as happiness itself, whilst
Kant argued that morality was prescriptive and it prescribed moral behaviour believing once a moral requirement had been made aware, it required action, as awareness was the reason for doing something. For Kant, the only moral imperatives were categorical as they prescribed actions irrespective of the result differing from a hypothetical imperative which doesn’t demand any action (Anon., 2013). As Kant stated, ‘all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. If the action would be good simply as a means to something else then the imperative is hypothetical: but if the action is represented as good itself, then the imperative is categorical’ (Anon., 2010). Kant believed that Aristotle’s imperatives were all hypothetical, as they were performed merely to obtain a certain end and that the end was dictated by desires, implying that human will was no more than a facilitator of predetermined ends, limiting human freedom. Kant also challenged Aristotle’s viewpoint defining duty as something that was impossible to learn from observation and could only be deduced rationally which meant Kant’s views were a priori compared to Aristotle who preferred to base his views a posteriori, on experience (Bowie, 2004). One important difference between the imperatives expressed by both writers is that