Virtue Ethics vs. Kantian Duty Ethics
Asheton S. Pierce
Mr. John (Ray) Peace
September 13, 2018
At some point in our lives we have faced difficult moral situations. We all would like to act virtuously in these situations. But the question is how do we do that? When we are put in a certain predicament how do we as humans react? What exactly is it that sets an example for us to follow when we are in these types of situations. Two philosophers by the names of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant had their different views and beliefs on exactly what to do when one finds themselves in these sticky situations.
Aristotle believed ethics was the result of virtue theory. Aristotle was most famous for his virtue theory of ethics. His virtue theory states that morality comes from an individuals character, not from rules or laws being present. Someone that knows exactly how to react to a difficult situation right on the spot is described as being a virtuous person. A virtuous person would be considered moral considering they know what to do and how to respond during any situation they may be faced with. Basically, Aristotle believed that all people held their greatest goal in life to achieve happiness and that virtue was the way to ultimately achieve the greatest happiness. His theory of virtue ethics poses that in order for greatest happiness to exist then three things must be present. First, happiness must be desired for itself. Secondly, happiness must not be desirable on account of other goods. Lastly, everything else is to be desired for the sake of happiness. He believed that if these were all met then we could achieve Eudaimonia, which essentially means overflowing happiness. Aristotle states “Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves
(for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself.” (Aristotle 7) When applying this to todays time, friendships come to mind. One must love themselves, care for themselves, and have respect for themselves before they can achieve happiness. We don’t necessarily have to have friends to live. Someone who is happy can be self-sufficient but friendships are still a important aspect to our lives. We don’t have friends because we necessarily need them in our lives, we have them because we are happy and we want them in our lives. If we were alone without friends or a companion to rely on when times are tough, would we really be able to achieve happiness?
Kant however, believed ethics should be rule based, or deontological in nature. To Kant, all humans should be seen as inherently worthy of respect and dignity. He argues that all morality must stem from such duties, a duty based on a deontological ethic. Kant proposed a moral action was one done out of good will, could be universalized, and was respectful of others. Kant believed an action could not be a moral action unless you acted out of good intentions. He believed that humans were only capable of rationality and that if you try to take that away, it is taking away our humanity. Kant believed everyone had purpose for their actions and that we should always react with reason or logic. Basically, we should treat others how we ourselves would like to be treated. Personally Kant’s beliefs remind me a lot of the Golden Rule that many of us were taught very early in life. Essentially you must treat others with respect and kindness if you want to be treated with respect and kindness in return. I agree with Kant as far as the Golden Rule similarity. I too believe people should take full responsibility for their actions. If a person does wrongfully they should be prepared and know that it will come with consequences. His outlook could greatly affect our society today. Instead of passing by a person in need, take the time to stop and help them. If you were the person in need wouldn’t you want the people passing by to be considerate and help you?
Kant was against lying, he believed that people shouldn’t lie unless they were okay with everyone else in the world telling them lies as well. He states that if everyone would be honest all of the time and tell the whole truth about everything than a lot of conflicts could be prevented or even solved, this is why I prefer Aristotle’s view more over Kant’s. This is where I disagree with Kant. I find that Kant’s views could be problematic. Lying is bad, yet lying is subjective to every person. In todays society, many people are honest and straightforward when they are put in situations. There are people in the world that tell the truth about topics, they are honest and give their honest opinion but in the end someone ends up getting mad because it isn’t really what they wanted to here. There are some situations when being honest can still cause outrage and conflict. It’s almost like the person is being punished for telling the truth. Being honest and straightforward could create a conflict of some sort just as telling a lie would. There is no middle ground with Kant in my opinion, he dehumanizes normal human feelings, like compassion. Unfortunately, if everyone in the world were honest there would still be conflicts and outrage regardless.
In conclusion, Aristotle and Kant’s views are different in a sense that Aristotle believed a person should worry about their personal happiness before others happiness. That as long as the three things mentioned earlier were present, a person could reach overflowing happiness. Some say this is selfish, I agree to disagree. It is selfish in a sense that your worried more about your own happiness. However, you must be happy with yourself before you can make others happy or be happy with someone else for that matter. Aristotle believed that happiness must be desired for oneself, and I wholeheartedly believe in that. If you do not desire happiness and strive for happiness than what exactly is your purpose in life? We must strive everyday to do the best that we can with full potential. Everyday a person should strive for happiness. They should find happiness within themselves, do what makes them happy and then worry about others. However, while finding that happiness for oneself this does not mean be inconsiderate of others. You should still show respect to others while finding your own happiness. A person can still care for others and love them, but they should still put their own happiness first. I do however agree with Kant that everyone should treat others in a respectful and meaningful way of how you would want to be treated, that doesn’t mean that you have to be unhappy though. If I had a relationship or friendship per say that were at risk and my happiness were on the line, I’d choose my happiness over everything else.
Works Cited
“The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle.” The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates, classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html.
dpadvertisingco. “Kant Ethics.” YouTube, YouTube, 5 June 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQcC1qYP08s&feature=youtu.be.
Warburton, Nigel. “Philosophy: The Classics.” Camanda Sermons, player.fm/series/philosophy-the-classics/kant-groundwork-of-metaphysic-of- morals.