Comparing Kant's Outlook On Happiness And Morality

In relation to how happiness affects the longevity of morality, Kant’s theory clearly looks to separate the two, and show a distinction that will show that if happiness is seen as having a connection with morality; it could cause the end of morality. Though Aristotle proposes a lengthy argument on how happiness is the basis for morality, his argument is dated and fails whereas Kant’s does not. When comparing the two arguments it will show why Kant’s outlook on happiness and morality is the correct view one should take, and how Aristotle’s own short coming further reinforce the consequences of connecting happiness with morality, in that the prior will destroy the latter. Before going in further, one must look at what is happiness to Kant. Happiness,

One major problem we find is that Aristotle does not look at the diversity between humans. Aristotle’s ultimate end that he thrust upon humans is narrow and limits what one assumes humans are capable of knowing. Thusly insulting the reason mankind is given. Another problem is that Aristotle is stating in a continuous circle and contradictory way that the motivation for acting virtuously and morally good is achieving the ultimate end, happiness. However Aristotle would not agree with this because according to him an act is not virtuous unless it is so done as to be an end of itself (quote) and that pleasure is only an afterward of living the virtuous life not one’s reason for doing virtuous things. (quote) Yet if a virtue does not help one each happiness, according to Aristotle, they are useless. His contradictory statements are largely un-virtuous in that they simply state our motivations are in fact pleasure incline because one’s overall goal is happiness. Kant in turn believes that moral acts don’t come from the need to reach happiness but moral acts come from a moral duty, the most important motivation and act a rational being can have when trying to follow universal laws that produce morality. This moral duty is a requirement among rational beings that is expressed as the categorical imperative, or is expressed in a way that it can will itself to become a universal law that all rational being understand. This sense of understanding these duties does not affect freedoms either, unlike Aristotle’s