Aristotle vs. Mill

Paper Summary:

This paper discusses the similarities and differences between the ideas of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill. The paper examines the notions of morality and friendship and elaborates on the innate goodness of a person. Mill's opinions regarding these issues are identified and compared to those of Aristotle. The paper contends that while there are several correlations between the two thinkers, Aristotle tends to reason deductively, while Mill reasons inductively.

From the Paper:

"The Greek philosopher Aristotle and John Stuart Mill agreed that the objective of morality was the pursuit of general happiness and the good life in society and in the individual. But they deviated in the concept of, and the manner of arriving at, "the right thing to do," especially in reference to friendships. Mill held that actions are right in the proportion that they tend to promote that happiness and wrong, as they tend to promote unhappiness. He advocated the action/rule-based type of morality, which determined the goodness of an act according to the consequences of that act and independently of the doer's virtues or character traits (Fieser). This type directly opposes the virtue-based morality propounded by Aristotle, who believed that happiness as the ultimate end of existence that is sought for itself and not for any other end. "

More papers on Aristotle vs. Mill:

• Comparison Essay # 141766 : "John Stuart Mill Vs. Aristotle"
• Essay # 16367 : "Pursuance of Pleasure: Egoism vs. Humanism: A case for human Nature"
• Essay # 3093 : "Nietzsche vs. Mill"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: