Analysis Thoughts of Mill, Kant and Aristotle in the Books Middlemarch and The Surrounded - Book Report/Review Example

?Philosophy Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts 9th June, Mill, Kant and Aristotle advanced different theories on certain aspects of human life and their theories on several instances have differed. This essay is going to explore their different schools of thought as witnessed in the books of ‘Middlemarch’ and the ‘The Surrounded’. These three philosophers had different thoughts and ideas on virtues and came up with theories to explain different human characters. John Stuart Mill came up with a theory that supports happiness as the only true virtue that should be cultivated by human beings. According to him, the act of making oneself happy is important in the process of taking certain decisions. Mill’s theory is referred to as utilitarianism and this differs from the categorical imperative and Nichomachean ethics theories advanced by Emmanuel Kant and Aristotle respectively. In the book “The Surrounded” we see different characters who undertake different actions based on their judgement. One instance is when we see the engagement of Dorothea to Casaubon after a long talk between Dorothea and Celia. Dorothea intended to get married to Casaubon so as to learn from the enlightened man and become his helper as he tried to achieve greatness. However, as witnessed in the book, their marriage was not successful since both of them failed to achieve their intentions out of this marriage (Rashdall 169). Based on the theory of virtue according to Mill, the ultimate actions of a person are to achieve happiness or eliminate pain. This theory is referred to as utilitarianism and its aim is to promote hedonism and thus the actions and intentions of the actor or agent do not matter so long as happiness is achieved. Dorothea’s intentions of marrying Casaubon were to gain enlightenment, remedy her ignorance and acquire knowledge. She knew that once she would be enlightened and assist Casaubon in achieving the greatest path she would be happy and content with her actions. However, all her intentions and actions did not lead her to happiness. As a result, we can conclude that in the process of coming to the decision to marry Casaubon, Dorothea did not consider her happiness. As a result, her actions were not in tune with the theory of utilitarianism and thus we can conclude that her actions do not conform to the theory of utilitarianism. Moreover, when we examine the actions of Casaubon in relation to his marriage to Dorothea, he thought that by marrying the beautiful Dorothea he had found a good helper who would assist in his works. As a result, the actions of Casaubon were to secure someone who would help him in undertaking small tasks as a secretary of sorts (Wolff 144). At the same time, while Dorothea was subservient to her husband’s demands she made sure her husband’s educational and personal needs were being taken care of. However, since both of them had different intentions they could not achieve their goals as they were on the path of happiness. Both the intentions of Dorothea and Casaubon failed to meet the theory of utilitarianism as advocated by Mill. Since both of their actions had the consequences of happiness they did not consider happiness as the end result of their marriage. According to Mill, the actions of a person should be measured based on the consequence of his/her actions. This is in contrast to Emmanuel Kant’s categorical imperative theory which looks into the consequences of one’s actions. According to Kant, actions have consequences and therefore the actions of Dorothea and Casaubon must have some consequences. Kant’s categorical imperative theory calls for duty of will whereby the person undertaking certain actions should have the right to doing a sensible action since it favours his/her interests while looking out for the interest of others. Therefore, the actions of a person have to reflect the will of that person and thus it would be virtuous and beneficial to all parties. In relation to Dorothea and Casaubon, we get to see that the actions of Dorothea were based on her will of getting educated and gaining knowledge from Casaubon (Rashdall 122). As a result, her duty was that of getting educated and assisting Casaubon based on her will of getting enlightened. The actions of Dorothea did not consider the consequences of her decisions and as a result, we notice that her actions and those of Casaubon were in line with Kant’s theory. Their actions fulfilled Kant’s theory since they had intentions of serving their interest and their actions proved true to their intentions and will. Based on Kant’s theory, all actions have consequences and thus if an action is right then it will bring the correct results. Another school of thought is put forward by Aristotle who is of the idea that a virtuous action is based on rational choice and weighed decisions (Wolff 181). Thus, the acts that must be performed have to be noble and aim at consequences that do not only please a person but also other subjects and people it is going to affect. Since Dorothea and Casaubon did not consider the extremes and feelings of their actions, we cannot consider their actions as satisfying the theory of moral virtue. This is because they did not think that by marrying each other in order to satisfy their will the consequences would be dire and end with conflict and unhappiness in their marriage. Moreover, Dorothea and Casaubon never got the opportunity to satisfy their goals and wills. The theories of Kant, Mill and Aristotle are also explored in the book “The Surrounded” by D'Arcy McNickle which explores the life of Archilde Leon upon his return from the city. The actions that are worth analyzing surround the topic of feelings and actions in respect of morality and virtues concerning Louis shooting. In the mountains, when Archilde in the company of Sheriff Quigley and his mother Catherine find Louis shooting a dear. A confrontation between the sheriff and Louis led to the sheriff shooting Louis on suspicion that he would shoot him. As a result, Catherine upon seeing his son die took a hatchet and hacked the Sheriff to death. Based on Mill’s theory, Catherine’s actions to some extent conform to this theory since her actions have the best intentions of removing pain of her son’s death (Wolff 211). According to Mill, all that matters is the consequence of one’s action upon the agent and not the will or actions that lead to these consequences. Thus in this case, we can say that the actions of Catherine were rush and did not consider whether her actions would deprive the sheriff’s family of happiness. But in some cases, it is difficult to measure the consequences that require us to achieve utilitarianism principles. For instance, in this case it would be difficult for Catherine to estimate and know the consequences of her actions. Was the killing of the Sheriff motivated by her desire to be happy or to eliminate pain? Alternatively, we can argue that killing the Sheriff was done out of the need for revenge and this action would not bring her son back or make her happy. However, some scholars would argue that the actions of Catherine were defined by Aristotle’s Nichomachean rules since she made a rational choice to kill the Sheriff. The actions of Catherine were derived from an act of choice since her actions were noble based on the fact that she knew what she was doing and she did for her own sake and this action was also motivated by a firm and an unchangeable characteristic. However, she did not consider what her actions would bring to the family of the Sheriff, thus the consequences of her action were unforeseeable (Rashdall 105). Her actions should be considered bad for depriving the Sheriff’s family of their loved one and it would also be considered just since the Sheriff had killed her son and she was trying to soothe her pain and anger as a result of the Sheriff killing her son. Thus based on this argument we can say that Catherine’s actions conformed to Aristotle’s virtue ethics. When we analyze her action in relation to Kant’s theory of duty ethics we find that this theory has no relation to her actions. This is because her motive and actions could not serve any good and therefore they fail to satisfy Kant’s theory. Moreover, her actions when applied in the real world would lead to chaos which is not justified by Kant’s theory. The theories of these philosophers in most cases contradict each other as seen in the first example of Dorothea and Casaubon. Meanwhile, in the second example they contradict each other except for Mill and Aristotle’s theories which to some extent justify the actions of Catherine. In some cases such as the Catherine case in ‘The Surrounded’ we witness that the theories of Mill and Aristotle justify the actions of Catherine. In the first example it is only Kant’s theory that justified the actions of Dorothea and Casaubon. Consequently, we can conclude that the theories advanced by Mill, Kant and Aristotle contradict each other based on the circumstances, actions and events were they are applied. Works Cited Rashdall, Hastings. The Theory of Good and Evil: A Treatise on Moral Philosophy. Boston, MA: Pelshiver, 2005. Print. Wolff, Robert. Ten Great Works of Philosophy. Chicago, IL: John Wiley and Sons, 2002. Print. Read More