ipl-logo

Comparing Aristotle, Kant, And Mill

1327 Words6 Pages

Philosophy is a unique and deeper thinking in which a philosopher provides well-structured thoughts which are abstract and in respect to the social needs or demands. In philosophy, the cardinal maxim is based on the fact that the thinking must be as a result of deeper understanding and quest of knowledge, characterized by independency in judgement while giving an opinion. It therefore follows automatically that philosophy is not a theory but rather an urge for wisdom. As a result, philosophy is never perceived as a way of life, because each philosopher does not have his or her own way of life, but all philosophers in general think independently, leading to a wider range of reasoning over the same topics and issues in society. For the purpose of this analysis, the concentration will be on three philosophers: Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. This will involve the analysis of their different perceptions based on their moral thinking.
Human good is normal reasoning and is referred to as the total wellness of a person. Good will on …show more content…

His argument is based on ethical theories in which he established what is right and wrong in the society. According to Mill, justice involves being law abiding and one should consider his or herself as a morally responsible person. In addition, a person should be able to face a penalty for committing acts which are not justified. Many people therefore will agree to be punished for committing wrong. However, in some circumstances a person may end up doing wrong due to lack of another alternative. Kant on the other hand argues that good deeds should be influenced by an individual instead of the society (Neill 41). Therefore, everyone should be responsible of their own actions. The three philosophers therefore agree that it is the responsibility of individuals to act in a responsible way and be law

Open Document