Moral philosophies of Mill, Kant & Aristotle
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The moral philosophies of Mill, Kant, and Aristotle are different in the rationale they offer for moral behavior. Each theorist offers what he believes is a normative ethical theory that should be used as a guide to determining moral behavior. Of the three, that of John Stuart Mill offers one of the better guides to moral behavior and to the balance to be maintained between the rights and responsibilities of the individual to him or herself and to his or her society. Kant bases his view of morality entirely on reason, while Aristotle saw the virtuous man as feeling good about being virtuous. Mill offers a utilitarian conception of morality that serves because it works and because it takes into account the different requirements of the parties involved and finds a balance based on achieving the best possible result, an approach that seems geared to complex issues more reasonably than does Aristotle's version of virtue or Kant's conception of moral duty. In discussing moral philosophy, Kant sets up an opposition between duty and inclination and links the opposition to the operation of reason. The distinction can also be made between animal impulses and human consciousness. Kant makes a distinction between actions taken from inclination and those taken from duty, and only those taken from duty can be said to have moral worth. He indeed makes a further distinction between acts taken in accordance with duty and those that are taken for the sake of duty, and again only
. . .
d object lives by physical laws which they cannot change, and there is no choice involved. Moral actions are of a different order because there is a choice involved, and to have moral worth such actions must be performed out of a sense of duty and out of a reverence for the law. Moral worth is not conferred by the outcome of these actions--doing good works because people will be helped are not automatically moral because of a good outcome. The good will that is created by moral actions is the only good without qualification and must develop from a reverence for the law.
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle carefully considers the issue of responsibility and finds that the human being is indeed responsible for his or her actions and may be morally culpable even for unintended consequences. This applies both to the private conduct of individuals and to the conduct of legislators acting for the public good. For Aristotle, acting unjustly is tantamount to wishing to act unjustly. The individual is responsible both for his or her moral disposition and also for the manner in which moral questions are decided by him or her. Indeed, this is seen as a natural process so that the individual is born with the ability to differentiate
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Stuart Mill, Instead Kant, Happiness Mill, Ethics Aristotle, Kant Aristotle, Virtue Aristotle, Mill Bentham's, Happiness Aristotle, Kant Kant, duty inclination, moral worth, inclination duty, moral behavior, john stuart, stuart mill, john stuart mill, duty moral, John Stuart, duty inclination coincide, individual society, reverence law, happiness overall, inclination duty inclination, sum total happiness, duty sake duty,
Approximate Word count = 1665
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Moral philosophies of Mill, Kant & Aristotle
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
