Where Kant and Aristotle differ in their beliefs is that Aristotle proposes using the mind with virtue to obtain the Good Life. Aristoltle believed that the desire to live the fulfilled live is what being a human being was all about. Wealth, honor and pleasure were all part of the highest good in some way. Material wealth is always obtained to get something else. In order to reach Eudemonia (happiness) humans must have intellectual virtues and virtue of character. Intellectual Virtue is the same as scientific knowledge and comes from the truth and education of nature. Virtue of character comes from courage, temperance and generosity. Overall Aristotle believes that virtue comes from acting right and showing good character by performing …show more content…
right actions. Aristotle counted on the law to increase the characters of individuals. For the Good Life a person must show strength and self respect, adopt good principles and act on these good principles. This is half of the equation, with the other half being happiness. Looking at today's' politics one of the most polarizing positions politicians and society must face is the issue of abortion.
It is a debate that is front and center with every presidential and congressional election. Judges who are nominated for the Supreme Court are asked repeatedly their stance on abortion. To look at the issue of abortion from a Kant side of philosophy, Kant believed that human life was sacred and needs to be protected. He looked at the start of life at conception. Kant believed all humans have potential to be morally correct. He felt that all humans should be living to fulfill their moral duty. With those arguments Kant would not support abortion and find it to be morally wrong. Another way to look at Kant's view of abortion is to look at his categorical imperative. He would check to see if abortion was morally acceptable by asking if every woman would want an abortion. If the answer is that every women would want an abortion, then abortion is morally acceptable. To summarize the Kant point of view, abortion would have to be universal so everyone got abortions and the human race would not exist. This is against the Laws of Nature and for that reason it would not be allowed. To preserve our species everyone would have to be pro-life or else we would go
extinct. Thinking back over the year with all the discussions and doing research on Kant and Aristotle, I have to sit and think "Do I think abortion should be legal?" Philosophically, I do not think every women wants an abortion. In my opinion abortion should be legal, but only in the first trimester of pregnancy. I know many people disagree with abortion for religious and moral reasons, but I do not believe you can take away the right from women to choose because it is their body. Fifty years ago, women never had a choice on whether or not they could end a pregnancy. Women were doing it illegally and dangerously risking their own life as well. When abortion was not legal, if a woman were raped for example, she still had to have the baby. If people behave carelessly and have unprotected sex, ethically and morally I have an issue with couples being careless and not having protected sex. Unwanted pregnancies can be prevented easily. I believe that everyone is entitled to the good life, regardless of bad choices and stupid activity, including the mom and baby. If a woman gets pregnant and they do not want to carry it to term because of their own personal reasons then she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. It is not a moral or virtuous decision but it is their decision to make. I am thankful that I exist today and I am happy my parents decided to keep me. They were responsible and did not have children until they knew they could protect and care for me. They also knew that having children was part of their Good Life.
Although both philosophers believe that you have to be moral in order to be good, their definitions of both happiness and moral virtue differ. Aristotle’s goal in, “The Nicomachean Ethics,” is to argue that there is such thing as a chief good as well as to argue his definition of happiness. virtue is a mean; but in respect of what is right and what is right and best, it is an extreme (Aristotle, 42).” Here Aristotle explains that moral virtue is determined by reason and that it avoids the states of too much, excess, or too little, deficiency. He believes that our soul is the principle of living because it is inside of us.
Aristotle’s virtuous person and Kant’s moral worth have two different meanings. Kant and Aristotle, from different times, have different ways of looking at what makes people make the best decisions. Coming from different sides of ethics in Deontology and virtue ethics, they agree and disagree with each other as most other schools of ethical thought do as well. After stating both their positions, I will prove that Kant’s view of morality is more correct than Aristotle’s view of the person.
Abortion, which is defined as a deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, is one of the most controversial issues in society. Many people believe that abortion is unethical and morally wrong, while others believe that it is a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body. According to www.census.gov, “the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at 1.2 million a year” (1). This statistic supports how many women are choosing abortion. Although abortion is legal in the United States, many people continue to voice their opinions on how it is a human rights violation and should be illegal everywhere.
Abortion is a very strong issue in our society today and is an on-going issue in most areas of the world. An abortion, for those who don't know the term, is where a pregnant female medically terminates a fetus or has a miscarriage. With the many recent controversies about abortion in the recent years, society has split in two on the subject. There are the Anti-abortionists, the people whom are against the termination of the fetus. And the Pro-abortionists, those who are for the abortion of the fetus. Even though it may seem like a black and white matter, it does certainly have a gray area for both sides. From health issues, laws being implemented, or the different methods of preventing pregnancies, there are many views from the women on this matter.
Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century philosopher whose ideas redefined philosophical views of morality and justice, and provided a base for modern philosophers to argue these ideas. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues against Hume’s idea of utilitarianism. Kant also explores the idea of freedom, free action, moral action, and how to determine if our actions are moral by use of the categorical imperative.
As humans, we are all created equal however, are we obligated to act morally? Although each person may have different beliefs on the topic, everyone has their own methods of moral reasoning. According to Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and most philosophers, he believes that we are all obligated to act morally through duty-based ethics. With such a belief, we are obligated to act in accordance with a specific set of maxims regardless of the consequences. Kant developed one of the most influential moral theories that derived from human reason. Throughout the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant sets out to find a better understanding of morality developed from principles rather than experience. He clearly argues why we are obligated to act morally through the importance of duty, moral worth, and the categorical imperative.
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
Abortion may be one of the most controversial topics in America today. Abortion is defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus” (cite dictionary). There are really only two sides on people’s opinion on abortion; pro-life which means abortion should be outlawed and pro-choice which means a woman should be able to decide whether she wants to keep her baby. Thousands of protests and riots have begun due to the fact pro-life activists believe abortion should become illegal. Both sides bring valid points to support their decision that could sway any person’s thoughts. The Roe v. Wade law has allowed abortion to be legal in the U.S since 1973 (Chittom & Newton, 2015). The law “gives women total control over first trimester abortions and grants state legislative control over second and third trimester abortions” (Chittom & Newton, 2015). Ever since the law was put in place, millions of people have tried to overturn it and still
Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.
Abortion, a controversial topic that excites like no other topic in this country. The principal reason why this topic is so controversial, is because there are many people on both sides of the issue. For the most part, it seems that certain social groups of society tend to think similarly about abortion. In this day and age it seems that there are not many pro-life Democratic politicians or pro-choice Republicans. Typically, Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans pro-life. Personally, I consider myself to be pro-life. I firmly believe that the point in which a person becomes a person by a clear and definable measure, is when it acquires a genetic code that identifies it as human. At conception there is potential life and if a fetus is killed, that fetus is gone, forever. It cannot be duplicated. All that said, I believe abortion is wrong both morally and ethically and it should be illegal.
For example, a mother who opts to abort lives a life full of misery and guilt following her unethical action. The same issue is explored by Kant, where he argues that frequent abortions would make the human race extinct. Therefore, not irrational or good to the society. Lastly, they argue that abortion denies the fetus the right to life which is granted by the Human Rights Commission. Judith Thomson argument that a human embryo is a person indicates that he or she has the right to life, and no one has a right to terminate it (Baird & Stuart, 78). Therefore, abortion is unacceptable, irrational and immoral action to
Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
Abortion is morally permissible because there is a distinction between human in the sense of biology versus human in the sense of belonging to the Moral community and possessing moral rights. Kant provides that in order for an individual to possess a sense of morality, it is essential for the individual to be a rational agent. Warren’s account of abortion provides that it is morally permissible at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of circumstances for wanting an abortion. Warren examines the anti-abortion argument that follows as: (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, (2) fetuses are innocent human beings, therefore (3) it is wrong to kill fetuses (Arthur and Scalet, 277). Warren objects to the first and second premises of this pro-life
It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the right to life is the most important and sacred right possessed by human beings. With this being said, it comes as no surprise that there are few issues that are more contentious than abortion. Some consider the process of abortion as immoral and consisting of the deprivation of one’s right to life. Others, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see abortion as a liberty and a simple exercise of the right to the freedom of choice.
Abortion has been accepted by the United States of America ever since the monumental Roe vs. Wade case in the early 1970’s, but is still a very controversial issue. Many people are for and against abortions. Some people say that the child inside its mother’s womb deserves the opportunity to live, while others believe that a mother has the right to choose whether or not her fetus can live or die. Other advocates for abortion claim that abortion helps keep the threat of overpopulation down. They also say that in many extreme cases, it is in the best interest of the mother and the child that the fetus be aborted. Abortion helps keep the crime rate low, so it should remain legal, they also say.