Site Loader

In Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle says the moral goodness is
achieved through having the good life. If there are multiple moral goodness,
then it seems the good life must include any sort of action that can be
accomplished through any virtue. Also, Aristotle defines moral good as a
disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of lack
and excess, which are evils. We learn moral good primarily through habit and
practice rather than through reasoning and instruction. Good is a matter of
having the appropriate attitude towards discomfort and pleasure. Also in
Nichomachean Aristotle believes in eudaimonia, this is People who are eudaimonia
are not in an emotional state so much as they are living successfully. While
happiness is the activity of living well, virtue represents the potential to
live well “to be happy is to be blessed, and those happy are blessed by the
Gods”. Excelling in all the moral virtues is fine and good, but it doesn’t
ensure our happiness unless we exercise those virtues “we seek happiness, and
happiness is the goal we seek more than anything else”. Brave people who never examination
their courage by facing down fear have virtue, but they are unhappy. Aristotle
illustrates this distinction between happiness and virtue by saying that the “greatest
athletes only win at the Olympic Games if they compete”. A virtuous person who
does not exercise virtue is like an athlete who sits on the side-line and
watches. Aristotle has a proactive conception of the good life: happiness waits
only for those who go out and seize it” 
things such as honour, pleasure, intelligence, and all kinds of
excellence, we purse each for its own sake, but also for the sake of happiness”
according to Aristotle these are the things that help us be happy and provide
us help to happiness.

Aristotle states that goodness consists of having a good life.
This includes having things such as bodily goods (such as heath, pleasure,
etc.), external goods (such as food, shelter, drink, clothing, etc.) and goods
of the soul (such as love, friendship, enjoyment, knowledge, skill, etc.)
“friendship is a personal relationship freely”. This is the plan that a person
needs for living well and help them achieve this moral goodness. For Aristotle,
moral goodness plays a special role in living well and having a good life, the
reason is because moral goodness helps use having the habit of making the
correct choices in our life, so it is important we make the correct decides
because it is our choices determine whether we live well. If we make too many
bad choices we will not live poorly.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In Kant’s account of moral goodness, he says a person is
good or bad depending on the motivation of their actions and not on the
goodness of the consequences of those actions. 
By “motivation” he means what caused you to do the action
(i.e., your reason for doing it).  Kant
argues that one can have moral worth (i.e., be a good person) only if one is
motivated by morality.  In other words,
if a person’s emotions or desires cause them to do something, then that action
cannot give them moral worth.  Kant
believes Good will is an important part of moral good because it is good,
without qualification. Also, he says “it is impossible to conceive of anything
at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without
qualification expect a good will” this mean since moral good is good will
according to Aristotle, the will is alone and free and there is nothing which
is evil without qualification expect an evil will.

Kant theory argues that only moral goodness can be qualified
as good will and moral goodness is natural and moral goodness and this also includes
good will. No other virtue has this rank because every other virtue can be used
to attain immoral ends (the virtue of loyalty is not good if one is loyal to an
evil person, for example). The good will is exceptional in that it is always
good and upholds its moral value even when it fails to achieve its moral
intentions. Kant regarded the good will as a single moral principle which
freely chooses to use the other virtues for moral ends. For Kant a good will is
a broader conception than a will which acts from duty. A will which acts from
duty is different as a will which overcomes interferences to keep the moral law
correct. A dutiful will is then a special case of a good will which becomes
visible in opposing conditions. Kant argues that only acts performed about duty
have moral worth. You have to follow the correct laws and wills because to because
a morally good person, you have to complete tasks which are morally correct and
it would not be right to not follow the law, however following these are equally
as strong as being a good person, because you have to treat others how you are to
be treated Kant says.

It is the attendance of desires that could operate self-sufficiently
of moral demands that makes goodness in human beings a restraint, an vital
element of the idea of “duty.” So, in analysing unqualified goodness as it
occurs in incorrectly rational creatures such as ourselves, we are
investigating the idea of being motivated by the thought that we are
constrained to act in certain ways that we might not want to just from the
thought that we are morally required to do so. “moral good itself would not be
unconditioned worth, therefore the natural good cannot be good as means to the
moral good” where Kant explains to us that moral good on its own isn’t worth
much in price, like you are not able to sell your moral goodness to somebody,
it comes from the within of you. Also, he says therefore then natural good is
something your born with and this isn’t as good as moral good, the morally
goods you have been taught.

They are both similar because they believe there is no
goodness other than moral or natural goodness, they both believe these are the
only two types of goodness and one is caused and the other you are given
within. According to Kant’s moral philosophy is the view that right actions are
those actions that are not instigated by needs or desires, but by practical
reason. Right action is right only if it is undertaken for the sake of
fulfilling one’s duty, and fulfilling one’s duty means acting in accordance
with certain moral laws or ‘imperatives’. To help us identify those laws which
are morally compulsory Kant has provided us with the ultimate calculus: the
‘categorical imperative’ which states ‘Act only in accordance with the maxim
through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law’. To
the categorical imperative, Kant offers a codicil which relates specifically to
human will; ‘so act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means’.

Whilst Kant’s moral philosophy can be said to hold
considerable merit, in that it advocates that human beings should be treated as
ends in themselves rather than means to ends, I would argue that, as an ethical
theory, it fails in that it looks on people, not as sentient beings, but as
duty humans. Thus, it seems to me, of the two theories, by its rejection of
closure in relation to what it is that determines right action, and its view
that it is one’s natural disposition to seek to lead a life of excellence,
Aristotle’s ethical theory is the closest we have come to identifying an
ethical theory that requires the least change to allow us to lead an ethical

For Aristotle there are two parts to the mind/ soul: the
intellectual and the emotional. This is like Kant on moral goodness because
Kant tries to compare the moral good with the natural the same thing that
Aristotle tries to do, they both explain this quote similar “the first good in
itself, but the second is no way” this statement is expressed by both of them
in the way of importance and the value of happiness.

Moral goodness is expressed in the choice of pursuit of a
middle course between excessive and deficient emotion, and exaggerated or
inadequate action: this is the famous doctrine of the Golden Mean, which holds
that each virtue stands somewhere between two opposing evils. Justice, or
‘fairness’, the most important virtue of the moral virtues, is also concerned
with a mean in the sense that it aims at each person getting neither more or
less than his or her owing. However, it is not like other virtues, flanked by
opposing vices since any departure from the just mean, on either side, involves
simply injustice. Moral virtue prevents disordered emotion from leading to
inappropriate action. Also, another similarity by both Kant and Aristotle is
that they both believe in that moral goodness is help caused by happiness and
causes more happiness. “to be happy is necessarily the desire of every rational
desire” they both pursue there on moral rights on this and believe happiness is
a big cause of moral goodness.

Post Author: admin


I'm Erica!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out