Assignment on Aristotle and Kant (Similarities and differences between Kant and Aristotle)

Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most important philosophers we know today. Although they stand ages apart in time, yet their theories are so much similar, if not in the way they have presented, but definitely in practice. The central essence of concepts such as virtue, happiness and human goodness are all relevant today as it had been since the time immemorial; however it does not play the same role as they did in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Thus, there are instances in which Kant appears to have different ideas than that of Aristotle; nonetheless they largely share a significant amount of similarities. When it comes to ethical theories, both Aristotle and Kant have differences and similarities. Their idea focused on what was right and moral. Kant focused on what could give human beings a means to happy life. Whereas Aristotle focused on the ‘mean’, this is between emotion and action. Kant makes clear statement that an action has moral worth if and only if it is done from duty and does not merely accord with duty. The concept of duty for Kant is very broad and abstract, because he considers the action which has goodwill in it as only the duty.  In essence this paper will basically talk about Aristotle’s idea of morality and Kant’s idea of self-preservation and attainment of happiness. Furthermore, it will delve on Kant’s metaphysics of morals and the contrasting idea of Aristotle and Kant.

Based on Aristotle’s book Nicomachean ethics, it says that everything a human being do is to achieve highest good, which Aristotle terms as eudemonia, which is roughly translate to be happiness. However, there is difficulty in making people understand and agree on what ultimately makes for a happy life or in other words a good life. In order to obliterate this confusion, Aristotle states that the supreme good is in doing things rationally in line with virtue. Similarly, Kant’s idea of goodwill is called ‘duties’. It is close to what Aristotle says. The highest purpose of each individual is presumably self preservation and attainment of happiness (Kant, p. 45). However, interestingly Kant believed that people with reason are often less happy than the common masses. This is because reason act as a means to individual survival and a way of happiness. Kant makes three propositions to support this idea. Firstly, if actions are done for the sake of duty alone, it is genuinely good. Secondly, actions are not rated for what motives it is done for, but rather by the maxim which serves as a motivation. The last proposition is that the duties ought to be carried out due to respect and reverence for the law. This makes for the similarities that Aristotle and Kant have. Although the way they deliver their idea may be different, but when it boils down their idea comes into same practice.

Principle of morality, as for Kant is independent and not linked to any external forces or outside world.  That is why the idea of ethics involves the understanding of reason, which means it exists outside the experience.  This comes from Kant’s idea that there are numerous ideas of moral duties which apply to multitudes or rational beings, regardless of any situations or circumstances. Kant makes use of the ‘pure morality, rather than empirical one. Kant uses the term “metaphysics of morals” to denote a pure ethical theory (Ethics, 2019). Moreover, following Kant’s idea, morality is not something that is particular to human nature. As is evident, Kantian idea of goodness differs from that of Aristotle, particularly with regard to what is the main function of happiness? According to Aristotle, the action is characterized as good only if it is reasonable. Here, it is sufficiently possible to strike a connection between theories of morality in which Kant also believes that the intensity of value lies in what it can motivate.  However, both of them have a different idea for what motivates the moral acts (Jabbar, 2013). Aristotle argues, for men happiness is the highest good, in order for which all other action are interlinked.  According to this idea, action of every individual is only good if the effort is consistent with virtue.  In contrast, there is strong objection from Kant on the notion of goodness which is deemed to be measured through its influence on happiness.  For that reason alone, Kant’s idea of morality is not grounded in the idea of morality, rather it focuses on moral maxim. Specifically, he makes it clear that actions are only deemed moral when it has some driving moral motivation behind it. Therefore, it is evident that, unlike Aristotle, Kant separates morality from the issue of Happiness.

As seen in most of his works, Kant’s efforts were to break with the early moderns, who based their morality on self-interest. Following this, Kant relocates the foundation of morality and politics from self-interested reason to pure a priori reason. Nonetheless, Kant does not go away from early modern prioritization of external freedom over the good, at least when it comes to politics. On the other hand, when it comes to issues such as equality, the attainability of happiness, Kant does not base his ideas on Aristotle, but rather uses a minimal amount of understanding from early modern period (Little, 2017). The main reason behind why Kant did not adopt Aristotle’s ideas and methods is perhaps due to the fact Aristotle almost always grounded his moral and political believes in the ‘metaphysics of morals’ that may no longer be tenable. Also, Aristotle however is reluctant to indicate a harmony in nature between happiness and virtue, yet his explanations of virtue do not depend entirely on that foundation. It could be because of that, Aristotle’s approach is more viable than Kant thought.

In any case, despite the substantial differences reoccurring in Aristotle and Kant ideas, both of them agree on the significance of noble and good. Both the philosophers also believe that the motivations are necessary component of any moral actions. Generally, they agree that politics ought to ultimately serve the moral ends. Moreover, both the thinkers are rationalist who nonetheless think that passion, pleasure and desire have crucial part to play in both moral and political action. Finally, they realize that political practice must prudentially reconcile universal principles with what is possible in a given set of circumstances (Little, p. 185). From this we can clearly discern that, neither Kant nor Aristotle was very clear about their own ideas. Nonetheless, they occupy a prominent place in annals of history as important figures, to one need to have reverence and respect for bringing such phenomenal ideas to the world.