Similarity between Aristotle and Kant’s Moral Goodness


What role do reason and rationality play in Aristotle and Kant's conceptions of moral goodness?


The morality of humankind has been one of the most significant topics that philosophy has addressed since its inception (Gino, Kouchaki and Galinsky 2015). One of the elusive topics that philosophers have sought to resolve is the assessment of morality. The idea of moral excellence is considered in the essay in the context of theories by Aristotle and Kant. The goal of the article is to compare and contrast the two renowned thinkers' theories. The philosophical views date back thousands of years and may or may not have any similarities in theory, but in actuality there must be some parallels. Civilization may have advanced greatly, but the fundamental idea has not changed.

The transformation of Aristotle's moral virtue into Kant's moral ethics has undergone a variety of social transformations. Changes in a person's moral character and the standard by which society assesses such changes have persisted across time. The different moral problems that have arisen in civilization over time have impacted how people perceive moral virtue in that culture.

According to Aristotle, the idea of moral excellence in society is a product of practise and learned habits rather than a theoretical implication (Hutchinson 2015). According to Aristotle, the idea of ethics is not just theoretical, and a person might develop virtue via consistent, steadfast practise. When deciding if a practise is good or bad, one can look at the changes that have been seen while the persons have been engaging in it. Aristotle's definition of virtuous behaviour rests mostly on the balance between the excess of extremely good behaviour and the so-called evil behaviour. The repeated usage of good practises rather than bad ones will cause a virtual change in an individual making them adhere to the virtuous behaviour. Additionally, it is not desirable for society for people to demonstrate their good behaviour to the extreme (Sanderse 2015). The virtue of a person who balances their action depending on the balance between the extremities of the responses in a particular scenario is what Aristotle considered to be the perfect behaviour (Carr 2014). For instance, Aristotle defined courage as a balance between extreme rashness and cowardice (Greek:??????? [andreia]). As a result, Aristotle emphasises that people's answers to the circumstances in their life should strike a balance between the extremes of that reaction. According to him, the general social changes could be the result of a combination of responses from the vast majority of people. Eudaimonia, the penultimate existential state, is attained by activity and the practical application of Aristotle's philosophy. Aristotle defined the ideal state as one of perfect fulfilment, which can be attained by moral decision-making. People's behaviours are guided by their intentions, hence excellent intentions should be rewarded by repeating those activities in society.

The categorical imperatives he theorised form the basis of Kant's idea of moral qualities (Sherman 2014). The moral rules that one must abide by in a certain circumstance are known as the categorical imperatives, according to Kant's theory. Kant's categorical imperatives lay the foundation for evaluating a person's morality in a particular situation. When establishing the categorical imperative in a particular situation, it is possible to take into account how a person's moral and ethical ideals have evolved over time. Kant distinguishes between an individual's moral obligations to oneself and to society, dividing them into two categories (Aune 2014). Kant contends that achieving perfect virtue seems to be an impossibility, yet he believes that it is every person's right to pursue happiness. In order to grasp the variations in people's judgement, Kant believes that a set of ethics should be established a priori, i.e., as a set of set theory-based philosophical norms. When forming a knowledge of the various settings that people are into and the situational response, the whole situation of the individual is taken into consideration (Kant 2017). The various moral values that a person holds depend on a set of personal moral principles, although they appear to be inhibited by a variety of other situations and evaluated a priori. When followed, the fundamental set of moral principles or categorical imperatives endows a person with good will. According to Kant, each person has a responsibility to conduct activities and make decisions that uphold this social benevolence (Denis and Gregor 2017).

There are several striking parallels between Aristotle and Kant's ideas of morality. In the ideologies of Kant and Aristotle, the fundamental principles of the analysis of deeds paving the ideals of the righteous ethical and the moralistic society remain the same. The main commonality amongst philosophers' theories of moral perfection is their acceptance of the impossibility of creating the ideal society and their belief that people should pursue moral behaviour since it will lead to happiness (Vaughn 2015). This can be regarded as the main driver behind why people want to uphold morality and ethics in society, as doing so will make everyone around them happier.

Prior to realising that they explained nearly the same set of ethical principles working toward a shared goal and including a concept of achieving happiness in society as the primary motivation of a moral society, it was believed that the Kantian and the Aristotelian concepts of virtue were very different from one another. They may have different perspectives on the activities, but they both have a standard by which to judge whether a person's conduct in a certain situation were justified.