Kant Vs. Aristotle

Paper Summary:

The paper explains Kant and Aristotle's views on personal morality and focuses on the Catholic Church's usury ban during the Middle Ages. The paper explains that it was made with a presumably moral intent, and thus Kant would likely approve of it in theory, but in actual, Aristotelian fact, this action had bad effects upon the world by creating a more immoral and less happy world. The paper relates that were it not for the availability of lent money, human society would not have evolved as it did in terms of providing diversified occupations, personal choice of occupations, as well as more tolerance of 'other' groups who were non-Christians. The paper asserts that the problem with Kantian moral theory is its level of abstraction and distance from all historical, hands-on and social considerations.

From the Paper:

"According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, personal morality is synonymous with action--to do good things is to be a good person. Aristotle stresses the need for happiness in life, as distinct from pleasure. Happiness is defined as living a balanced life, as opposed to wallowing in the sensuous enjoyment of things like food, money, and social approbation. These pleasures are transient but to enjoy life requires a rational appreciation of the world. Good is achieved by 'shooting' for what is good, like an archer always aims to hit the center of a target and every rational choice by every rational person aims in some way at what is morally good (Solomon & Martin 106). To do good things in Aristotle's view is to be good a person, a person who performs good, rational actions."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Solomon, Robert C. & Clancy W. Martin. Morality and the Good Life. 4th edition. New York: McGraw Hill, 2004.

More papers on Kant Vs. Aristotle:

• Comparison Essay # 64003 : "Kant vs. Aristotle"
• Essay # 34825 : "Right vs. Wrong"
• Analytical Essay # 135622 : "Plato vs. Aristotle on Proper Government"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: