The idea of ethics has been around since 300 BC when it was first assigned as an area of study. The concept of ethics places an emphasis of morality in social relations-- with man himself and humanity. Philosophers such as Aristotle and Kant addressed to ethical issues at various times-- more specifically, the ideas of virtue, human action, and happiness.
According to Aristotle, nature has allowed man the desire to be virtuous and is an expression of our identity. The soul of man is an idea composed of two parts: rational and irrational. When desires conform to reason, they are rational. On the other hand, when desires do not conform to reason, they are irrational. Ethical virtues arise at the interferences of these two parts. Where and when
…show more content…
In certain situations, the morality of an individual is judged by their action, not by the outcome of that action. They both also believed that logic was the only way to understand the moral world. They argue that emotions alone are too subjective to be useful in making moral claims. Both Aristotle and Kant argue and understand that there are some actions that are intrinsically evil, and should never be taken. Lastly, Kant believes that the ends are never to be considered if an action are morally undertaken. To that end, regardless of how the choice to action turned out, the act would always be moral, if it began as a moral action. For Aristotle, this belief is mostly true as well. The fundamental difference between the two men is that Aristotle argued that if the ends were considered, found to be totally unjust, and no other alternative was present, the action would still be morally righteous if it were taken. However, if the ends were considered, found to be unmet, and a better alternative was present, but it was not taken, the action could be ruled immoral based on the outcome. He argued this because the choice to do what was suited for the greatest good was never a moral decision. Kant's theories are argued from a deontological perspective, in that they are not situational. Kant believed that morality was ruled by laws and codes of actions. Aristotle argued that morality was ruled as a variance between extremes. His theories were more teleological because they could be situational. Meanwhile, Kant argued that a person was virtuous if he upheld goodwill for the greatest good and made choices based on that ideal. For Aristotle, virtue was measurable. Kant believed that this was a false construct, because goodwill was unquantifiable, and was determined by law so it never