Aristotle’s emphasis on how we should live in ethical thought has long been a subject of debate among philosophers. While Mill and Kant both argue that the most important ethical question lies in how we should act, however, Aristotle’s focus on the importance of virtue to the quality of our lives as a whole presents a compelling alternative to duty-based ethics. In this essay, the discussion will explore the role of character in moral decision-making and evaluate its significance in promoting the good life as proposed by Aristotle. The paper will argue that the virtues we cultivate are essential in guiding moral decision-making and promoting the overall well-being of the individual and society by contrasting the risks posed by utilitarianism as proposed by Mills and deontology as proposed by Kant.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that the goal of ethics is not simply to act according to a set of moral rules but rather to achieve a good quality of life for the individual and society. According to Aristotle, this good life is one in which an individual cultivates virtues such as wisdom, courage, and justice and uses them to achieve eudaimonia, or human flourishing (Sachs, 2021). The good life, according to Aristotle, is one in which an individual cultivates these virtues and applies them to their daily routines and interactions. In this way, these individuals focus on the quality of their experience in the world as opposed to the outcomes of their actions. From this starting point, Aristotle’s view of morality focuses on the means and the manner in which humans choose to live their lives. Aristotle, therefore, calls for a collective view of life that calls for all humans to strive for virtues in the pursuit of the common good and the welfare of the entire community and society.
One of the critical differences between Aristotle’s approach and that of Mill and Kant touches on their distinct points of emphasis on the role of character in moral decision-making. For Aristotle, the virtues we cultivate shape our actions and make us more likely to act according to moral principles. In contrast, Mill and Kant focus more on the actions that are right or wrong without considering the character of the individual making the decision (Morrell & Dahlmann, 2022). As a result, the morality of an action is based on the outcome that can be directly attributed to it. Mill’s emphasis on how we should act in ethical thought is central to his philosophical approach. In his theory of utilitarianism, Mill argues that the goal of ethics is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for the greatest number of individuals in all our actions. Kant’s emphasis focusing on how we should act in line with the moral law is central to his philosophical approach. He proposes this idea in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, where he argues that the goal of ethics is to act in accordance with the moral law, which he refers to as the “categorical imperative.” The moral law then serves as a guide on how humans should live, presenting and rigid and inflexible approach to determining the right course of action.
One of the key differences between Kant’s approach and that of Aristotle can be traced to Kant’s emphasis on the role of moral rules as applied toward decision-making. For Kant, the right action is determined by whether it conforms to the moral law, a universal and objective principle that applies to all individuals (Stein, 2020). In contrast, Aristotle’s emphasis on the good life allows for greater consideration of a situation’s particular circumstances and context. Therefore, in Kant’s conception, the particular circumstances and context of the situation are immaterial, and a final determination is based on the application of moral rules informed by virtues. Additionally, Kant’s emphasis on moral rules can provide a more consistent and predictable approach to ethical dilemmas. By considering the moral law as the guiding principle for decision-making, it is possible to determine the proper action in any given situation. This approach can provide a clear framework for moral decision-making, even in complex or uncertain situations. Kant’s emphasis on how we should act in ethical thought offers a valuable alternative to Aristotle’s focus on the good life. However, it does not account for the individual’s role in contributing to the sustainability of society through the common good, as proposed by Aristotle.
One of the key differences between Mill’s approach and Aristotle’s can be traced to their different views on character as an essential variable for making decisions. While Aristotle argues that the virtues we cultivate shape the way we act and make us more likely to act in accordance with moral principles, Mill’s approach focuses more on the consequences of an action without considering the character of the individual making the decision (Komu, 2020). Mill’s focus on the consequences of an action can provide a more straightforward approach to moral decision-making. In many cases, the right action may be clear based on its ability to promote the overall happiness of society. This approach allows for a more objective evaluation of moral dilemmas rather than a consideration of the individual’s well-being and ability to achieve eudaimonia. Mill’s approach may not fully consider the needs and interests of all those involved in a moral decision. It may also lead to a neglect of the role of character and the importance of virtues in moral decision-making. Overall, while Mill’s emphasis on how we should act presents a compelling alternative to Aristotle’s focus on how we should live, it also has its limitations. By considering the consequences of an action and the overall happiness of society,
Immanuel Kant’s understanding of moral dilemmas contrasts with Aristotle’s approach to ethical thought. While Aristotle focuses on the good life and the importance of virtues in moral decision-making, Kant emphasizes the role of moral rules and the need to act strictly with the universal moral law (Dimmock & Fisher, 2020). In Kant’s moral philosophy, he proposes the concept of the “categorical imperative,” which states that an action is morally right if it can be willed as a universal law. This approach focuses on the inherent moral value of an action rather than its consequences or the character of the individual making the decision. Kant argues that moral rules are absolute and universal and that individuals must act in accordance with them, regardless of the particular circumstances of a situation.
Kant’s emphasis on the universal moral law allows for a more inclusive approach to ethics. By considering the moral value of actions for all individuals, Kant’s approach allows for a consideration of the needs and interests of all those involved in a moral decision (Abakare, 2020). This approach may provide a more equitable consideration of the impact of moral decisions on society. However, Kant’s emphasis on moral rules and the universal moral law can also lead to a more rigid and inflexible approach to ethics. By neglecting the importance of context and the individual’s well-being, Kant’s approach may not fully consider the nuances of moral dilemmas and the unique circumstances of a situation. It may also neglect the role of character and the importance of virtues in moral decision-making.
By overlooking the importance of character in moral decision-making, an individual may be more likely to make decisions that do not align with their virtues and do not contribute to their overall well-being and ability to achieve eudaimonia. Without the guidance of virtues such as wisdom, courage, and justice, individuals may be more susceptible to making selfish, impulsive, or harmful decisions. Additionally, by neglecting the role of character in moral decision-making, an individual may not fully consider the impact of their actions on their well-being and that of others.
By focusing solely on the consequences of an action or the moral rules governing it, an individual may not fully consider the impact on their well-being and that of others. This can lead to moral decisions that do not promote the overall good of the individual and society as a whole (Brown, 2020). Furthermore, overlooking the importance of character in moral decision-making may lead to a more limited and rigid approach to ethics. By neglecting the importance of virtues and the individual’s well-being, an individual may not fully consider the unique circumstances of a situation and may be less able to adapt to changing circumstances. This can lead to a less flexible and inclusive approach to ethics, which may not fully consider the needs and interests of all those involved in a moral decision.
Aristotle’s emphasis on the quality of life allows for a more comprehensive understanding of ethical dilemmas. In many cases, the right action may not be clear-cut, and it may be necessary to consider the overall impact on an individual’s well-being and ability to achieve eudaimonia (Abakare, 2020). This approach allows for a greater emphasis on context and the particular circumstances of a situation rather than strict adherence to universal moral rules. Furthermore, Aristotle’s focus on the good life can provide a more inclusive and holistic approach to ethics. By considering the well-being of the individual and society as a whole, Aristotle’s approach allows for a consideration of the needs and interests of all those affected by moral decisions rather than just the individual making the decision.
Overall, while Mill and Kant’s emphasis on moral rules and actions has its merits, Aristotle’s focus on the good life provides a valuable alternative perspective on ethical thought. By considering the role of character, the context of a situation, and the well-being of all those involved, Aristotle’s approach offers a more nuanced and holistic approach to moral decision-making. The importance of character in moral decision-making is essential in promoting the good life, as proposed by Aristotle. By cultivating virtues such as wisdom, courage, and justice, individuals are more likely to act in accordance with moral principles and promote their own well-being and that of others. This approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of ethical dilemmas and the unique circumstances of a situation while promoting a more flexible and inclusive approach to ethics. In contrast, the emphasis on consequences and moral rules, as proposed by Mill and Kant, may lead to a more limited and rigid approach to ethics. By neglecting the importance of character, these approaches may not fully consider the impact of moral decisions on the individual’s well-being and that of others.
References
Abakare, C. (2020). The Origin Of Virtue Ethics: Aristotle’s Views. GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis, 3(1), 98–112.
Brown, E. (2020). Kant’s Doctrine of the Highest Good: A Theologico-Political Interpretation. Kantian Review, 25(2), 193-217.
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2020). Aristotelian Virtue Ethics. PHI220 Ethics. Retrieved from: https://viva.pressbooks.pub/phi220ethics/chapter/ch3/
Komu, S. S. (2020). Pleasure versus Virtue Ethics in The Light of Aristotelians and the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mills and Jeremy Bentham. Al-Milal: Journal of Religion and Thought, 2(1), 37–56.
Morrell, K., & Dahlmann, F. (2022). Aristotle in the Anthropocene: The comparative benefits of Aristotelian virtue ethics over Utilitarianism and deontology. The Anthropocene Review, 20530196221105093.
Sachs, J. (2021). Aristotle, eudaimonia, neuroscience, and economics. In A Modern Guide to the Economics of Happiness. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Stein, S. (2020). Hegel and Aristotle on Ethical Life: Duty-Bound Happiness and Determined Freedom. Hegel Bulletin, 41(1), 61-82.
write