Comparing Kant And Aristotle's Purpose
Purpose is an individual’s reason that inspires them to act in order for them to achieve their objective. An individual who is deeply involved in christianity would believe that their purpose is to live a good life in order to go to heaven. Through this belief, an individual may not be actually acting morally being that their desire to be good is motivated by the purpose of going to heaven. Without this motive, someone may not be inclined to act in such a way. Kant and Aristotle both cover this idea of purpose. Aristotle believes that people's actions are governed through their desire to achieve happiness. According to Aristotle, the purpose of human life is by happiness through living your life entirely by your actions as an individual on
…show more content…
Aristotle would criticize this though by finding the true meaning of what people say when they discuss religion. Aristotle would mainly focus on the virtues that are desired by the people following the religion. One of the main ideas and virtues of religion is that of faith. Faith is the complete devotion of oneself to a believe that would directly impact the way they live. While faith is a method that could lead people to living a wholesome life, Aristotle would argue that complete devotion to a something would not balance out as faith would be an excessive virtue. Aristotle believes that virtues should be learnt from habit and practice, not by instruction. By living through faith as instructed by religion a person is not living a virtuous life and therefore will not achieve happiness as a …show more content…
Duty must have moral value to it such that the reason for the action must be done because it is the right thing to do based on your own beliefs. Kant believes that the action partaken in must be a choice of freedom. He defines this freedom as acting “autonomously to act according to a law I give myself - not according to the dictates of nature or social convention” (Kant). The only moral actions are determined by the intention behind the act or the purpose of the act. In addition the act must be done in itself and not for an ulterior motive. Kant has two Categorical Imperatives that define motives, acting on a motive that can be universalized and an act such that you treat humans as ends in themselves and never as
Aristotle would criticize this though by finding the true meaning of what people say when they discuss religion. Aristotle would mainly focus on the virtues that are desired by the people following the religion. One of the main ideas and virtues of religion is that of faith. Faith is the complete devotion of oneself to a believe that would directly impact the way they live. While faith is a method that could lead people to living a wholesome life, Aristotle would argue that complete devotion to a something would not balance out as faith would be an excessive virtue. Aristotle believes that virtues should be learnt from habit and practice, not by instruction. By living through faith as instructed by religion a person is not living a virtuous life and therefore will not achieve happiness as a …show more content…
Duty must have moral value to it such that the reason for the action must be done because it is the right thing to do based on your own beliefs. Kant believes that the action partaken in must be a choice of freedom. He defines this freedom as acting “autonomously to act according to a law I give myself - not according to the dictates of nature or social convention” (Kant). The only moral actions are determined by the intention behind the act or the purpose of the act. In addition the act must be done in itself and not for an ulterior motive. Kant has two Categorical Imperatives that define motives, acting on a motive that can be universalized and an act such that you treat humans as ends in themselves and never as