Aristotle Virtue

The doctrine of the mean, as coined by Aristotle, describes virtues as lying between the vices of excess and deficiency (Aristotle 98). This middle ground of virtue is considered by Aristotle to be excellence, which is meant to say that the thing is both good and performs its function well (Aristotle 98). The application of these virtues is not defined in a specific manner by Aristotle, as he believed that actions depended on circumstances, so there couldn’t be a one-size-fits-all standard (Aristotle 96). In order to develop and master the application of virtues, we have to practice them in our daily lives until it becomes a habit (Aristotle 95). We develop a virtue only when our actions constantly display and follow the virtue we are trying

to develop (Aristotle 95). To guide us in these pursuits, Aristotle believed that pain and pleasure could help us determine where our acts lie between the vices. Aristotle said: “Pleasure induces us to behave badly, and pain to shrink from fine actions . . . If the virtues are concerned with actions and feelings, and every feeling and every action is always accompanied by pleasure or pain, on this ground too virtue will be concerned with pleasures and pains” (Aristotle 97). The good life for humans is considered by Aristotle to be when we reach the end at which our actions or activities are aimed.
Kant’s philosophical belief in deontology dictated that our duty is what matters, rather than the outcome.

To guide these decisions, we are to use reason, rather than instinct, while being sure our decisions do not impact the autonomy--the ability to make decisions--of other individuals (Kant 41). A categorical imperative is something that we always have to do, no matter what the context of the situation is (Kant 42). Decisions that are good to make under this category fall under what is sometimes known as the universal law formulation, which says “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 42). This means that if the action you’re debating can’t be made a law that everyone else has to follow, then you shouldn’t do the action. Contrastingly, a hypothetical imperative is dependent on an additional condition (Kant 42). Kant also states how other humans shouldn’t ever be used by another individual only as a means to get something. Specifically, he said: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means . . .” (Kant

44).
In direct opposition to what Kant advises, John Stuart Mill believes that the outcome of a situation is more important than the initial act itself. Mill’s beliefs are termed utilitarianism. Mill was interested in what the consequences of a situation were going to be and believed that any actions could be taken to reach a desirable end result. What’s desirable, according to Mill, is that which promotes pleasure or is pleasurable, along with what discourages pain (Mill 47). The term utility is commonly used by Mill to describe this desire for pleasure and the discouragement of pain (Mill 47). Pleasure, according to Mill, can be found in the intellect, feelings, imagination, sensation, etc., pleasure also being synonymous with happiness (Mill 47-48). Not all pleasures, however, are created equal. In order to determine which pleasure is more desirable than others, a comparison of pleasures should occur, in which the pleasure given preference over the others would be termed the most desirable, given individual’s don’t feel obligated to choose one pleasure over another for moral reasons (Mill 48). The ability to feel pleasure, especially a great amount of pleasure, comes with a flip side. “A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering . . . than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence” (Mill 49). Since those who know both greater happiness and pain wouldn’t be willing to sink to a “lower level” to limit the amount of pain they could feel, it makes sense that utilitarianism’s goal is to maximize pleasure while minimizing the amount of pain, for the greatest number of people.
As a brief highlight and review of the differences and similarities between Aristotle, Kant, and Mill’s philosophical approaches to life: Kant and Mill are in direct opposition with their beliefs, Kant believing that the fulfilling of duty and the intent of an action is more important than what the outcome is to be.

Mill, however, thinks that a focus on the future outcome is far more crucial than what the in-the-moment action is (Mill 47). When comparing all three, Aristotle gives the loosest rules as to what actions individuals should take. Kant and Mill only give a couple of guidelines, though these guidelines seem to be a more definite determinant of what action should be taken. This lends some insight into why Aristotle believes that virtues need to be practiced in order to be mastered, as it is would likely take longer to find the mean between two vices rather than finding whether something could be turned into a universal law or if it uses utility for the greatest number of people possible. In reference to the similarities, both Aristotle and Mill believe in doing things for the greater good (doing things to benefit the most

people).
If faced with a moral dilemma, my actions would likely drift closer to the philosophical theories of Aristotle out of instinct. Being the best person I can be seems the most attainable, especially when considering the strain of trying to master 100% proficiency in various virtues as Kant’s theory seems to suggest as necessary. If I were to follow my duty as Kant instructs and a something tragic ensued, I would feel terrible even if I was within the boundaries of Kant’s theory. Even just thinking about this potential guilt would likely drive me to turn to actions closer defined by Aristotle. In the heat of situations, I tend to freeze up, causing all reason to go out the window. This would render it impossible to try and employ Mill’s theory in the first place.
I think it’s important to have a reason and good intent to accompany the actions we take, as sometimes we may lie for a good reason, even though we think that lying is generally bad. Aristotle’s theory seems to allow me both a long-term and short-term view of a situation and more freedom to be able to combine both these reasoning strategies to form the best action possible under the circumstances.