Olson 1
Jacob Olson
Dr. Marcus Varheagh
Philosophy 101
6 December 2006
Aristotle and Kant’s Ethics
Many philosophers have argued that stories gain their value through their
correspondence to general truths that they harness or clarify in concrete form. Since
philosophers can know these general truths directly, fiction and history are inferior to
philosophy. Socrates, as presented by Plato, held such an extremist version of this
position that he was ready to expel all poets from his ideal state, and replace their books
with myths created by philosophers. Kant held a generally more complex theory of art,
but he agreed with Socrates' view about the relationship of stories to moral philosophy.
"Imitation," he wrote, "finds no place at all in morality, and examples serve only for
encouragement, for example, they put beyond doubt the achievability of what the law
commands, they make visible that which the practical rule expresses more generally, but
they can never authorize us to set aside the true original which lies in reason, and to guide
ourselves by examples"(Weardt 28). This position coincides well with the view, also
common among moral philosophers, that moral truth is ultimately a matter of theory. As
J. S. Mill put it, "the morality of an individual action is the application of a law to an
individual case." If truths in the moral realm are laws, maxims, or doctrines, then stories
can offer instantiations or illustrations of these doctrines (Douglas 9).
Olson 2
On the other side of the table is the position that narrative is a free form and a
rival of philosophy, capable of carrying moral meanings that are not associated with
philosophical paraphrase. Hints of this latter view appear in Aristotle's Poetics. A
manifesto is proposed against the Socratic piece of literature, and announces that the
work will be "about poetry in itself and its various forms, and the capacity that each has"
(Aristotle Ch. 9) By contrast, Socrates had treated poetry as a potential vehicle for
philosophy and not as a genre "in itself." For Aristotle, imitation is natural, pleasurable,
and instructive. Furthermore, poetry ought to realize its natural form to the greatest
possible extent, shooting for real imitation. Aristotle believes that literature ought to show
us what it wants to communicate, and not tell us. He knows that imitation is not just a
clone, and that descriptive or narrative writing can contain meaning, even if the text never
mentions actual ideas.
The central principle of Kant's ethical theory is what he calls the Categorical
Imperative. He offers several formulations of this principle, which he regards as all
saying the same thing. They seem to say different things.
First, there is the formulation Kant regards as most basic: "act only on that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law" ( Ethics
Updates). The test for the morality of an action that Kant expresses here is something like
the following. Suppose that I am trying to decide whether or not to perform a particular
action, say X. Then I must go through the following steps: 1. Formulate the maxim of the
action. That is, figure out what general principle you would be acting on if you were to
Olson 3
perform the action. The maxim will have something like this form: "in situations of sort
S, I will do X." (For example: "in situations in which I am thirsty and there is water
available, I will drink it," or "in situations in which I need money and know I can't pay it
back, I will falsely promise to pay it back.") 2. Universalize the maxim. That is, regard it
not as a personal policy but as a principle for everyone. A universalized maxim will look
something like this: "in situations of sort S, everyone will do X." (For example: "in
situations in which anyone is thirsty and water is available, that person will drink it," or
"in situations in which anyone needs money and knows he or she cannot pay it back, he
or she will falsely promise to pay it back. 3. Determine whether the universalized maxim
could be a universal law, that is, whether it is possible for everyone to act as the
universalized maxim requires.
First example seems harmless, but Kant argues that the second maxim could not
be a universal law: if everyone started making false promises, the institution of promising
would disappear, so no one would be able to make false promises, since there would be
no such thing as a promise to falsely make.) If the universalized maxim could not be a
universal law, you have a perfect obligation not to perform the action.
By treating others as mere means, treating them only as devices, we can use them
to help us satisfy our desires, seems a clear enough notion; certain kinds of corporate and
sexual relationships seem like clear examples of it. Kant's idea seems to be that we treat
someone as an end only insofar as we act toward him or her in a way that he or she can
understand as appropriate or justified: we should be able to explain our reasons in such a
Olson 4
way that the person will see the reasonableness of acting in the way we propose. Thus,
for example, Kant writes: "he who is thinking of making a lying promise to others will
see at once that he would be using another man merely as a mean, without the latter
containing at the same time the end in himself. For he whom I propose by such a promise
to use for my own purposes cannot possibly assent to my mode of acting towards him,
and therefore cannot himself contain the end of this action" (Ethics Updates)
He is not saying that we should never treat others as means. Most of us probably
couldn’t even survive if we didn’t. We treat farmers as means to supply us with food,
builders as means to provide us with a place to stay instructors as means to help us get an
education. What he is saying is that we shouldn’t treat others as means only. We should
deal with others in ways such that they could accept the way we treat them. I do not treat
the farmer as a means only because I am willing to pay him for the food he provides me,
and he is willing to provide the food on those terms. I am respecting him as a being that
sets his own ends, who determines for himself how he will act and interact with others.
More generally, treating others as ends in themselves means not using force or deception
or manipulation to get one’s own way. It means open, honest and respectful treatment of
others.
What is ruled out by this formulation, therefore, appears to be actions which treat
others in such a way that they do not have the opportunity to consent to what we are
doing. So we treat others as mere means when we force them to do something, or when
we obtain their consent through compulsion or dishonesty.
Olson 5
One of the main concepts of Aristotle’s essay, Nichomachean Ethics, is man’s
pursuit of happiness. Aristotle’s opening sentence of the essay states: “Every Art and
every inquiry, equally practice and pursuit, seem to be aimed at some good, on account of
which it has been nobly said that the good is that at which all things aim.” There is no
debate that the supreme Good is happiness; the debate arises over what exactly
constitutes true happiness in life.
I think that Aristotle is saying that happiness consists of a certain way of life, not
of certain dispositions. A person’s true happiness will not come from their outlook on
certain situations, their wealth, or their luck. True happiness, the aim of all things, comes
from a person’s way of life. Aristotle also draws associates between being happy and
being virtuous. Possessing the right virtues allows a person to live well. Since happiness
is the activity of living well, the virtuous are more likely to live a happy life.
I agree with Aristotle in that happiness is not merely an activity or outlook, but a
way of life. Winning the lottery won’t make a person truly happy. They will be happy
when they know that they are living their life in accord with their set of morals. To me,
true happiness comes not from monetary wealth, academic achievements, or personal
accomplishments. Happiness is when someone can say that their decisions are dictated by
their morals, not their personal motives. To have your life guided strictly by a moral
code, not by a desire for personal gain, would bring someone true happiness. If you live
your life based solely on morals, you will find happiness in life no matter what happens
because you are living life based what is truly right, not what is beneficial to you.
Olson 6
According to Aristotle, such methods of ethical judgment are superior to the
methods of philosophy. We cannot, he argues, judge particular cases by applying moral
doctrines or definitions to them. "Such arguments have some validity, but truly the
decision lies in the facts of life and deeds; for the authority lies in these" (Lawrence 77).
Moral truth emerges from the concrete facts when we describe them thickly, by
portraying them as part of a meaningful narrative. We ultimately gain the authority to
judge only if we have perceived a particular case in careful, value-laden terms. Moral
generalizations are indispensable as rules-of-thumb, since we lack sufficient time to
describe every situation in detail. The foundation of ethical reasoning is the judgment of
concrete particulars (situations that we can actually envision or experience). "Such
matters depend upon the particular circumstances, and the decision lies with perception"
(Lawrence 82).
It is rare for a philosopher in any era to make a significant impact on any single
topic in philosophy. For a philosopher to impact as many different areas as Kant did is
extraordinary. His ethical theory has been extremely influential. Kant is the primary
proponent in history of what is called deontological ethics. Deontology is the study of
duty. On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome
that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. The categorical
imperative is Kant's famous statement of this duty: "Act only according to that maxim by
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Owens 11).
Olson 7
Although there is no denying Aristotle’s genius, it is hard not to find his list of
ethics presented in book in book IV somewhat dated, from our perspective at least.
Although there is no denying ancient Greece’s influence on our concept of virtue, there is
also no denying that Christian morals influence our virtues even more. As good as Ethics
is, it is beginning to show its age more than 2300 years after it was written.
In book IV, Aristotle discusses each of his virtues one by one. In my opinion, the
most glaring omission from this list is the virtue of humility. In fact, Aristotle considers
humility to be a vice. To me, in order for me to call someone virtuous they must not be
arrogant or self centered. If someone possess all the virtues, but also has the perception
that they are superior to everyone else, are they truly virtuous? Also missing from the list
are other more modern Christian virtues; faith or belief, hope, and charity.
I do agree that for a person to be truly virtuous they must have not just one or two,
but all of the virtues. However two of his virtues, magnificence and magnanimity, can
only be possessed by the wealthy and honorable. Does this mean that only the rich can be
virtuous? Although there is something to be said for desires and way of life, I think that a
person of lesser means, living a simpler life, would be better suited to live a truly virtuous
life. A shepherd, living alone in a dug-out in the mountains, can’t be virtuous because he
doesn’t show magnificence and magnanimity.
Kant and Aristotle both respectively had brilliant views and theories on ethics.
Each philosopher had respectable points and also some that were not so respectable. It is
my belief that Aristotle, a god of philosophy in his own right, hit the nail on the head and
Olson 8
had a better ethical theory and Kant. His explanations of virtue and moral truth and how
they apply to the way of life are much more developed and applicable than Kant’s.
Today, normative ethics bridges the gap between meta-ethics and applied ethics.
It is the attempt to arrive at general moral standards that tell us how to judge right from
wrong, or good from bad, and how to live moral lives. Normative ethics takes the
positive concepts from both Aristotle (virtue ethicists) and Immanuel Kant (deontological
ethicist) and creates the supposed ideal ethics we have today.
Ethics has been applied to economics, politics and political science, leading to
several distinct and unrelated fields of applied ethics, including business ethics and
Marxism. American corporate scandals such as Enron and Global Crossings are
illustrative of the interplay between ethics and business. Ethical inquiries into the fraud
perpetrated by corporate senior executive officers are a growing trend. Ethics has been
applied to family structure, sexuality, and how society views the roles of individuals;
leading to several distinct and unrelated fields of applied ethics, including feminism.
Ethics has also been applied to war, leading to the fields of pacifism and nonviolence.
Olson 9
Work Cited
Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics. trans by W.D. Ross. eBooks@Adelaide, 2004.
Aristotle. Poetics. trans by S. H. Butcher. Procyon Publishing, 1995.
Barns, Jonathan. Aristotle and the Methods of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
Douglas, C.M. John Stuart Mill: A Study of His Philosophy. Edinburgh: Blackwood,
1995.
Ethics Updates - Kant and Kantian Ethics. 10/18/06.
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Kant/index.asp
Hurthouse, Rosalind. On the Virtue of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Lawrence, Gavin. Critique Aristotle and the Ideal Life. Philosophical Review: 1993.
Owens, Karl. Kant’s Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Swanton, Christine. Virtue Ethics: Pluralistic View. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003.
Vogel, Stephen. The Philosophy of Aristotle: Literature and Religion. Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon Books, 1998.
Weardt, Vander. The Socratic Movement. Ithaca: The Cornell University Press, 1994.
Word Count: 2,420