Both Aristotle and Kant argue that an act is moral if it began with an initial intent of morality. Regardless of how the choice to action turned out, the act would always be moral, if it began as a moral action. This is also true for Aristotle, to a certain extent. In certain situations, the morality of an individual is judged by their action, not by the outcome of that action. They both also argued that logic was essential to understand the moral world as emotion is too subjective. They both also contend that there are some actions that are inherently evil, and should never be taken in the first place. The primary difference between the two philosophers is that Aristotle argued that if the considered ends were unjust, the action would still be morally righteous. However, if the ends were considered to be unmet and a better …show more content…
In my opinion, this offers a very thin concept of morality, one that does not provide much practical guidance in our everyday lives. My personal criticism of Kantian moral theory is that it concentrates on the act itself to the exclusion of other considerations such as the moral character of the individual or the consequences of a specific action. I believe that focusing on a specific moral action, as Kant would have us do, fails to give us a full picture of what's really happening. All sorts of factors can distort our evaluation of how people behave in certain situations. People can act out of fear, under duress, or under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Actions committed under such negative conditions may be completely out of character for the individual concerned. Meanwhile, Aristotle’s philosophy of the golden mean and vices are much more feasible to everyday lives, however, I think that one can be flexible within the scale depending on the situation, but we have the will do choose how to act based upon the