Contrasting both Kant and Aristotle’s views Essay

Aristotelian ism, some(a) two constant of gravitation three hundred years old, is perhaps whizz of the most influential philosophies in history. After universe preserved by Arab scholars during the f tout ensemble of Rome, the find outings of Aristotle were found by Christians during the dark ages. His works, including Nichomachean Ethics, were of great influence to opusy Christian philosophers during medieval times, save soon philosophies began to alter, marking the affair of the Enlightenment. Philosophy similarlyk a drastic interruption from predominantly substantive reason to adjectival views, markedly seen in works by philosophers St. Augustine, Rene Descartes, and quite notably Immanuel Kant.By comparing the views shargond by Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics, and Kants Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals it is possible to better image the shift from substantive to adjective ratiocination. Although Aristotelian philosophy and logic shares some common ground with the writings of Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals marks a shift from high society and substantive cerebration toward the self and procedural reason.Kant believes that apiece living organism serves a t supplantency. For example, the highest purpose of a h iodiney bee is undoubtedly to produce honey. some(prenominal) in the selfsame(prenominal) sense, Kant feels that because humans alone are given the ability to reason that the highest purpose of earth is to use reason. (Groundwork, Ch. 1, Ln. 50-80) Aristotle would agree with this statement but uses a different logic. Aristotle sees an intrinsic proper deep d proclaim all(prenominal) play officeion, as hale a hierarchy of goods and actions. utilize the logic that any action partaken for the purpose of some greater cause is secondary to the greater cause, Aristotle reasons that for humans, the act of reasoning is of the greatest good because all opposite actions exist exclusively to maintain the a bility to reason. (NE, Bk.1 Pg. 1-2) betwixt these two philosophies, the purpose of human reason differs establish on what each philosopher believes to be the function of human macrocosms inside society. Aristotle states that because happiness is the ultimate cultivation of approximately all human actions (especially within what he considers one of the most important realms of humanity political science) the purpose ofhumanity, and thus human reason, is to find happiness. (NE, Bk.1 Pg. 4) Kant, on the early(a) hand, feeling that to succumb to the needs of the body and desires (what he calls heteronomy) is selfish, feels that it is the responsibility of humanity to use its reason to act out of good impart. (Groundwork, Ch. 1, Ln. 3-5) Exemplifying the procedural character of Kants logic, Kant feels that it is the duty of humanity to act only out of good will by employ reason to determine what Kant calls the categorical imperative mood. Kant defines the categorical imperative as an act of good will which is preformed with no considerateness to the ends, or consequences of an action. (Groundwork, Ch. 2, Ln. 280-300)In the world of Aristotelian philosophy, the only way to in truth attain the end goal of happiness is to be impeccant. (NE, Bk.1 Pg. 4) To define fairness Aristotle looks to societys views of an individual. People praise a brave man for being brave and hard man for his ability to run quickly or lift great objects. (NE, Bk.1 Pg. 4) Because of the importance of society within Aristotles thinking, he feels that for a person to truly be double-dyed(a), society mustiness perceive lovable characteristics within that person and recognize those characteristics through with(predicate) praise. To ornament and explain his organization of virtues and what is required of them, Aristotle uses the final divide of book one in Nicomachean Ethics sexual abstention too is distinguished into kinds in accordance with this inequality for we say that som e of the virtues are intellectual and others virtuous, philosophical wisdom and understanding and practical wisdom being intellectual, liberality and temperance object lesson. For in speaking nigh a mans character we do not say that he is wise or has understanding but that he is good-tempered or temperate yet we praise the wise man excessively with respect to his state of brain and of states of mind we call those which merit praise virtues. -Aristotle, (NE, Book 1, last(a) Paragraph)Un standardised Aristotle, Kant finds goodness not in the views of society, but instead finds goodness by croping inbound and looking individual within ones self and their holdion of good will. Kant feels that to express good will, an individual must use what he calls a priori reason. (Groundwork, Ch. 2,Ln. 280-300) A priori reason requires that the individual ignores subjective influences like consequences and circumstances. By focusing on objective convey like moralisticity and reason Kant su ggests that the individual attempting to exert good will should act in a way that he or she would consider a moral maxim (categorical imperative). Kant thinks we must ignore the norms of society and the way society functions and act only using a priori reason because society inherently cannot function in an a priori fashion.This is because society takes into account its own needs, desires, and calculates the consequences of its own actions while placing all of these things over minute reason and good will. By taking into consideration circumstances and consequences society fails to create frequent moral law and thus contradicts its own reasoning because the actions of society are not appropriate in all situations and circumstances. (Groundwork, Ch. 2, Ln. 580-590) Should a man in need of currency to buy food borrow money from a lending constitution knowing that he will not be able to pay that institution plunk for? Kant argues that that man should not, for if his decision were to become universal law and every man or cleaning lady were to borrow money without the intention of paying it back than lending institutions would fail. (Groundwork, Ch. 2, Ln. 590-605)Aristotle, believing that society can teach its citizens to be virtuous (and thus happy), finds that virtues are not found intrinsically within each individual. For a person to be virtuous he must be born to a respectable family, for he were not born into respect therefore he would never be viewed by society with the same esteem as others. He must also not have any major disfigurations, for these too would be given to a lower value within society. Assuming these conditions are met, the individual may then begin to practice virtuous actions, because through colony virtuous actions can become the nature of that individual, and that through practice an individual may grow to perform virtuous acts not out of desire to be virtuous, but because he simply enjoys the virtuous acts. precisely if the indi vidual finds pleasure in performing virtuous actions may that person be seen as virtuous within the eyes of society, for if pleasure is the end goal of humanity, then surely the enjoyment of virtuous acts is model(prenominal) of praise from society.After outlining and discussing both Kant and Aristotles views on the purpose of humanity, its role within society and the moral and ethical consequences to those roles it is clear that Kants thinking is interpreter of enlightenment thinking. Before the Enlightenment Aristotles views were astray accepted. During this time it was customary that each person function in a manner accepted by society. Ethics and morality were dictated by kind norms. The purpose of reason was seen as the pursuit of pleasure, and through virtue and the practice of virtuous actions reason could give up the individual to attain the end goal of brio happiness.In response to Aristotles logic, a shift in thought occurs. This shift, called the Enlightenment, is re presented by the tactile sensation that only pure reason can lead to true morality. The consequences of this belief is that individuals no longer focused on the norms within society to dictate morality, but to look within themselves to use their own reasoning to dictate what should and should not be done. An example of this thinking can be found in Kants beliefs about a priori reason and the categorical imperative. By ignoring consequences within society, as well as the ends achieve by each possible action Kant feels each individual can find true moral goodness through pure reason. This type of procedural logic is representative of the moral and ethical turn inward which exemplifies Kants philosophy as well as the revolutionary shift thinking that became the stern of the Enlightenment.