Kant and Aristotle's Ideas on Morals and Happiness - Essay Example

Lecturer Understanding Ethics Aristotle’s view on morality is often said to be radically different from what the rest of humanity consider to be morally upright. For instance, it is generally accepted that a person can be impeachable even though he continues to lead a life that is not only withered but ultimately unfulfilling. To most of us, there is always a demarcation between the things concerning livelihood and the things concerning our morality. In fact, most of us agree on the notion that the pursuit of morality often leads to us having to deny our self happiness (Sharman 272; Terence 2). By contrast to these universally accepted views, Aristotle believes that it would be impossible for any man or woman to access true and genuine heartfelt happiness unless the same person is also maintaining right morals. Virtue is, therefore, seen as a requirement for happiness. It is something that is hard to comprehend. One would think that if a person is given sufficient economic power or political power, then the individual could attain happiness without necessarily doing what is accepted as morally right (Terence 2). Kant has a different view on happiness. He believes that it is not possible to have a categorical imperative for happiness. People are different and they have different personalities. This implies that everybody has his own set of things that make him or her happy. What makes one happy does not necessarily make the other happy. Since knowing the things that make others happy is elusive, Kant believes that we can only use a hypothetical imperative in order to come up with something that will make other people happy (Kant 62). The concept of Aristotle on the morally right is not the same one that most other philosophers have. It is argued that if manners usually teach people good morals, the military will not be using the kind of training they do. There is the biggest concern on who knows who is moral and who is not. There is always the possibility of hypocrisy since outward appearance does not necessarily reflect the internal desires and intentions of a person. Morality is, therefore, thought by others not to be connected in any way to happiness, for instance, Kant (63) argues that morality is all about doing what is accepted in society as the moral thing to do. He believes that morality is all about rationalization in order to choose from the right and the wrong in order to end up with a moral decision. Kant further propagates the idea that a moral decision must be consistent with the moral laws and must be done for moral reasons (61). Friendship and Happiness Aristotle’s view of friendship is widespread at best. He uses the term to refer to a variety of human relationships; He believes that the term can explain almost all relationships whether talking about the romantic relationships between husbands and their wives, or even the non-intimate relationships. To him, all these relationships have one thing in common - reciprocated goodwill. The two people that are in the relationship are in it for mutual benefit. They are in a give-take kind of arrangement. The theory of Friendship, according to Aristotle, can only be perfected when the two individuals continue to seek out each others company and attention (Terence 2). Friendship is not only as result of mutual consent but also of mutual benefit. However, the heart of the matter should not be the benefit that emanates out of the friendship but more of knowing the other person. Aristotle argues that in an ideal relationship, each party is in the process of knowing the other party continually. It is this that creates the bonds of the friendship strong and authentic. Friendship is, therefore, not just based on mutual benefit but on the ability of both parties to acknowledge and respect the characters of the other parties. It is not just about getting ones desires fulfilled by the other person (Talbot 721). Friendship is the sure way to activity. For starters, it helps to remodel the characters of those that participate in it. The individual persons will ultimately have a clearer view of what is right and what is wrong. This means that the people can now engage in various activities with the ability to know how to deal with issues that might arise as a result of their actions or even as a result of the actions of third parties. Secondly, as the individual opens up his mind to accept and appreciate the characters of other people, as well as the characteristics of the activities that their friends are involved with, character friendship goes a long way into expanding the scope of the activities that one can engage in. Lastly, there is an opened up opportunity to engage in activities with ones friends that one could in no way share with people that are not friends (Terence 2). Character friendship will not be possible unless the two people spend enough time together so as to share not only in conversation but also in different other things. The most important part of friendship is what Aristotle’s calls theorein. It refers to the focus that one places on the other party with an aim of knowing the other person more. This “focus in order to know” only comes if the two are in the habit of sharing time together. This is a kind of knowledge that comes not from mere acquisition of facts but by active participation and engagement. Aristotle uses this same term to refer to the kind of attention that is usually sought out by people from their friends. It is, therefore, not just about the attention given to the friend but also about the attention sought after by the friend. Friendship blossoms as the characters of both parties are unveiled to each other over time. The character is, according to Aristotle, unveiled in the actions as well as in the words of the person. The person that is virtuous and ethical will also have some knowledge that helps them make the verdict on the right or on the wrong. The knowledge acquired is important since it is what helps man to make important decisions when in circumstances that demand that they make a right decision. One of the most revolutionary concepts of friendship that Aristotle had was that friendship is built on the cornerstone of morality. According to him, only people that had attained a virtuous state could actually have true friendship. He believes that character friendship is only possible when there are two or more people that are good and that have similarity of virtue. The implication of this is that such friendship is not commonplace since it is almost impossible to find such kinds of people in the perverse generation that we currently live in (Talbot 721). However, what causes Aristotle to have many people disagreeing with him on the theory he has on friendship is the thought that any one that is wanting in virtue does not qualify for friendship. Even though Aristotle agrees that love and friendship can grow between two people that have no equality in virtue, he argues that the friendship will also be unequal. Character friendship is viewed as the best school in which people are to learn virtue. Friendship is a powerful tool that is able to keep men and women from immorality and from crime. The problem with this concept is that it disagrees with his earlier concept that friendship can not exist unless there is perfect friendship. Aristotle believes that virtue can not be separated from friendship and that the two concepts are in fact no mutually exclusive. It is not possible to have one without the other. He also believed in objective correctness as far as reasoning was concerned. However, it may not be practical for one to achieve the best results as far as practical reasoning is concerned. Man is to error. According to Kant (61), morality is more about reason than experience. While experience is good in proving morality, morality in itself can only be possible if there is a good reason for it. This would imply that the truths that are realized out of experience are actually. According to Kant, mortality can only be measured by a categorical imperative. He defines this as acting in a manner in which you are in the best interests of the universally accepted law on morality. The implication of this school of thought is that in the event of having more than one categorical imperative, it would need for more than one universal law on the subject (Sharman 272). However, Kant offers another solution to this dilemma. If you were to define categorical imperative to mean that when one does an action, he believes that the action is done in a way that it can actually become a universal law that also touches on of the other actions, then it would imply that there would be only one law required. In other words, you will only need one categorical imperative (Kant 62) This is not the same view that is held by Aristotle. Aristotle thinks that morality is not about the universal laws that govern morality but more importantly, the issues that lead man to want to fit in a group. That is why he argues that friendship is one of the best places where man learns moral lessons and where one gets inspiration to avoid bad things and to achieve a high state of morality. When friends are together, they are more concerned about pleasing each other than anything else. If the two friends have already conformed to Aristotelian school of thought, then it means they are virtuous. The fact that they are virtuous will ultimately propel them towards making the right decisions (Terence 2). While Kant thinks that morality is based on universal laws and deciding between right and wrong is guided by a categorical imperative, Aristotle, on the other hand, believes that making the right decision is based on the knowledge gained. This knowledge is what ultimately guides an individual in making the correct decision when in a dilemma of right and wrong. The information is disseminated as a result of the authentic relationships formed by the individual and the past decisions help the person know the decisions he will make in the future (Talbot 721). Aristotle seems to create the impression that the moral value of an action depends on the action as well as on other actions that have been performed. However, Kant believes that the morality of an action solely depends on the ability of the action to confirm on the categorical imperative. It doe not rely on the other actions. According to Kant, an autonomous will is imperative for morality to be realized since the autonomous will actually becomes a law for itself. The will can help the maxim of ones action to be translated into a universal law. Heteronomy of the will refers to the case where the will follows the established universal law. This means that the will does not become its own law any more but it gets enslaved by the established laws and regulations. While autonomy of the will is good for the development of a universal morality, Kent believes that heteronomy of the will is equally important since it is needed so as to come up with the underlying principles that govern morality (Talbot 721). On the flip side, Aristotle believes that the morality of humans is all about objective good. To him, morality was natural and consistent with human nature. Those that are not doing the morally right have deviated away from what they should be doing in the first place. The fact that objective reasoning exists would also imply that any one would have a justifiable reason for his or her actions. This ultimately means that character friendship would be necessary to ensure that morality is maintained. The problem, however, is that character friendship may not be attained- at least according to the terms set out by Aristotle (Talbot 721). Conclusion According to Aristotle, happiness is an elusive concept. It depends on friendship, and friendship depends on morality. Friendship can only occur in the environment of morality. However, there are seldom any virtuous people in the society we live in. This means that friendship will not be realized and much less happiness. This would be the reason why man has always been in the pursuit of happiness over the years (Terence 2). Aristotle also teaches that friendship should be on the basis of mutual benefit. The mutual relationship thrives on how well the two (or more) persons have known each other. This is a knowledge that is progressive and it should be active knowledge that is gotten out of interesting with the other party by spending time together in conversation as well as in other important things. While Aristotle talks of morality in the context of friendship, as one of the required facets of friendship, Kant looks at the concept of morality from a different perspective. He argues that morality is all about some universal moral code that has to be adhered to. The main difference with his concept as opposed to that propagated by Aristotle is that morality is not out of reach for those that want to be virtuous. Works cited Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Translated by H.J. Paton. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Sharman, Nancy. “Of manner and morals”. British Journal of education. Values, Ethics and Character in Education 53.3(2005):272-289. Talbot, Brewer. “Virtues We Can Share: Friendship and Aristotelian Ethical Theory.” Ethics. 115.4 (2005): 721-758. Terence, Irwin. Astotle, ‘Book I’ from Nichomachean Ethics. Trans, Hackett: Indianapolis, 1999. Read More