In Kant and Aristotle’s Moral Theories, the Differences in Their Conceptions of Practical Reason

Every decision and action is made with the intention of achieving something great; thus, the great has been declared to be the goal toward which all things are directed (Beck, 123). As a result, philosophy should be concerned with determining why people engage in certain behaviors. Furthermore, philosophy helps people understand the steps they must take to achieve their goals by engaging in specific activities. Many people all over the world would gladly lend their support to the claim that being idealistic leads to good results. For instance, Aristotle believes that moral magnificence comes to fruition because of propensity, while happiness is an action of a soul as per complete brilliance (Donaldson, Thomas, and Thomas, 260). Therefore, this essay differentiates the conceptions of practical reason in Kant and Aristotle’s moral theories.

It is in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that he sets out his moral theory: whereby he wants people to live well (Rawls, 570). Furthermore, For Aristotle, the final or end reason for human existence tends to be eudaimonia (commonly deciphered as happiness). Therefore, Aristotle trusted that they want to carry on with a satisfied life is a piece of what it is to be human. In contrary to that, Kant’s theory tends to be rational on that matters that suggests that the right activities people practice are those activities that are impelled by neither motivations nor wants but through practical reasoning. For instance, right activity opts to be right if this activity is attempted to satisfy one’s responsibility, which then sustains personal obligation that implies acting as per certain ethical laws or ‘objectives.’

According to Aristotle, there are two distinct sections of how people behave such as emotional or intellectual. Consistently, there are two sorts of virtue in human beings: moral and intellectual. Additionally, regardless of whether moral or intellectual, a natural inclination of the mind ought to discover its appearance in intentional activity (Beck, 123). Hence, moral uprightness is communicated in the decision of quest for a center course amongst unreasonable and insufficient feeling, and overstated or deficient activity: this is the celebrated principle of the Golden Mean. In this manner, fortitude or courage is a mean amongst weakness and imprudence; and balance is the mean between insensibility, profligacy, and lust (Donaldson, Thomas, and Thomas, 263). The most vital virtue of the ethical ideals is concerned of how it goes for every individual getting neither more than nor not as much as his or her due to fairness and justice. Nevertheless, it does not care for different ideas, flanked by restricting indecencies since any takeoff from the simplest means, on either side, includes unfairness essentially (Rawls, 539). Moral temperance keeps cluttered feeling from promoting illegal activity.

On the other end, Kant’s ethical reasoning can be said to hold impressive legitimacy, since, it advocates that individuals ought to be dealt with as closures in themselves as opposed to intends to close .( Beck, 123). For that reason, it can be contended that, as a moral theory, it has limitations since it looks on individuals, not as conscious creatures, but rather as obligation machines. In this way, it appears to me, of the two hypotheses, by ideals of its dismissal of conclusion in connection to what it is that decides right activity, and its view that it is one’s normal air to try to lead an existence of brilliance. Aristotle’s moral hypothesis is the nearest people have come to distinguishing a moral hypothesis that requires minimal adjustment to enable them to lead a moral life.

The prudence of the theoretical part of the response is learning, or insightful astuteness: this temperance discovers it is most superb indications in pretty much single thought (Beck, 123). Incomparable happiness, as indicated by Aristotle, would comprise in an existence of philosophical thought. In any case, while this would be definitive in human satisfaction, additionally a life is past the acknowledgment of insignificant mortals (Donaldson, Thomas, and Thomas, 269). As well, as can be expected seek to be the sort of comfort that can be found in an existence of political action and open radiance as per moral esteems.

In conclusion, despite frequently in philosophy, individuals would assert that Kant’s deontological morals are the perfect inverse of Aristotle’s excellence morals. Thus, according to the explanation given above, this is a completely rectify understanding of both of the two scholars. While the reality of the matter is that a definitive standard of profound quality for Kant is that it must be finished by people obligation, with no respect for delight, this is not the main important piece of his morals.

Work cited

Beck, Lewis White. A commentary on Kant’s critique of practical reason. University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Donaldson, Thomas, and Thomas W. Dunfee. “Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory.” Academy of management review 19.2 (1994): 252-284.

Rawls, John. “Kantian constructivism in moral theory.” The journal of philosophy 77.9 (1980): 515-572.

Need help with your homework? Let our experts handle it.
Order form