Similarities Between Mill And Aristotle

In comparing both Kant’s resolution and Mill’s resolution to Aristotle’s expected resolution, one can view the many similarities and differences between Aristotle’s philosophies and those of Kant and those of Mill. Primarily, Aristotle would resolve the moral conflict by siding with the judgement that expresses the virtue as the mean and coincides with achieving a human’s highest end of the Summum Bonum, which equates to happiness, both according to the situation, but not relevant to the individual. Because of Aristotle’s principles, he would most likely support Ken Harrison’s release from the hospital as it would express the mean of compassion, which is the action of expressing sympathy, from the doctors and it would support the highest end of the Summum Bonum. This decision expresses the mean because the doctors do not demonstrate the deficiency of sympathy which would be to allow
For Aristotle, the intention of the action depends upon the situation and the consequences of that action; there are no rules which can bound a moral conflict and hold true for all moral conflicts. This notion greatly contrasts Kant’s philosophies, which state that a person must always follow a rule – thus, it is not situational – when making a moral decision as it follows the categorical imperative and expresses a pure will. Furthermore, Kant’s three formulations contrast greatly from Aristotle’s virtue as the mean and attainment of the Summum Bonum. While Kant’s formulations consider the value of life, the natural law, and the individualism of embodying the highest good, Aristotle focuses on the virtue of someone’s action, the overall flourishing, and how they achieve the Summum Bonum which is a good in itself outside of their being. Thus, Aristotle expects humans to act out of overall good character, whereas Kant supports a person who acts purely out of