This paper will discuss the similarities and differences between Aristotle and Immanueal Kant and the relationship between happiness and moral worth and whether a person can differentiate between what should be done as opposed to what is done.
In reading an excerpt from Aristotle’s Books One and Two of Nichomachean Ethics Aristotle considers the highest human good as a sense of happiness and well being or a sense eudaimonia, as he states it. Aristotle argued that every action a person takes has a specific purpose and that good is the aim of every purpose. Aristotle states that moral virtue is doing what is right, and making the correct decisions will give a person a great sense of worth. He states that virtues can be made attainable by acting the way a person wants to act. Aristotle researched what he thought was good for man and in doing so, he rejected pleasure, honor and wealth. He believed that all ethical principles can be attained through habitation, training and good upbringing. He claims that virtue is a habit, but is it really? Human beings have the ability to reason. That being said, does a person have to be taught right from wrong through training, or is a person born with the instincts to determine what is good and what is evil and only needs some influence from our counterparts to help with the decision process of what is a correct decision and what is not.
In reading excerpts from Immanuel Kant’s Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant has two concepts. He contrasts categorical imperatives with hypothetical imperatives. The hypothetical imperative is something we follow if it serves some desire. As opposed to the categorical imperative which applies to all rational beings independent of their desire and how it would be fulfilled. Everyone follows a categorical imperative, as something that is born into a person but does not need training or upbringing to perfect. Though Kant only has one categorical imperative, he has three...