Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Q-2: Compare and contrast Hume, Kant, and Aristotle on their views on the role that the emotions

in general (or particular emotions such as fear or love) ought to play in the good life, and in their moral philosophies in general. Aristotle viewed the role of emotions in a happy life as both integral and secondary to a mans Reason. Reason is defined by him as the practice of virtues (Ethike). Then, by the aforementioned definition, a virtuous (Reasonable) action must be rendering good the thing itself of which it is the excellence, and causes it to perform its function well.(Page 81) The natural function of mans soul then, according to Aristotle, is to live a good life in conformity with excellence or virtue attaining happiness through reason; for both reason and happiness are pursued for their own sake and self-sufficient. Therefore, a mans soul cannot be considered reasonable or functional if all parts are not in harmony with its good nature. That being said, Aristotle began mapping the function of emotions in part five of his Nicomachean Ethics where he posits that emotion, capacity, and characteristics are base components of a mans soul. Later on in his discussion of how one acquires happiness he places emotions in the irrational portion of the soul which is the seat of appetites and desire in general and partakes of reason insofar as it complies with reason and accepts its leadership (Page 76) In the global aspect of Aristotles theory, a man who has achieved functional excellence (arte) will have all parts of his soul in harmony with his reason ruling. So then, emotions role in the good life, according to Aristotle, is to play a subordinate role to mans reason. Although emotions and desires are the main drive of a mans soul, which lead him to action, it is first and only in the pursuit of good when they are following the rule and direction of reason. Thus, a man with the natural capacities and disposition for good will tactfully express his emotions through the guidance of reason proportionate to his development.

Aristotle believed we are not judged based upon an emotions effect on us, or even exhibiting them in general, but the specifics of how we express them. Therefore, if expression is an act then the expression of emotions is capable of being virtuous. In order for a virtuous or, reasonable expression to be so; it must have a characteristic that renders it good and be expressed with excellence when defined as such. A base example of this would be found in the comparison of righteous anger and malicious anger. One is innately good because it is expressed with the conviction of virtuous justice in reaction to injustice, and the other innately bad because it is expressed with the vice of spite. In closing, Aristotles general philosophy concerning emotions and their role in the good life is that they are evolutionary. They are evolutionary in the sense they have an effect on the overall development of a mans character. On the contrary to Aristotle, David Hume viewed emotions such as love and fear as one of two qualifies for unreasonable passion. The second notion in Humes unreasonable passion is that self-deception of judgment concerning cause and effect is a corruptor. In other words lying to ones self. As such, it is due to their as emotions to corrupt ones judgment according to Hume as they cause one to judge a situation not by passion or reason but biasedly by the means in which it would progress. This bias arises from the fact that passion, unlike reason, alights a fire in morality and is unstable alone thus causing raw emotions to only corrupt; even with reason. Whereas in Aristotles case of emotions being neutral until expressed, emotions could in fact be a boon at certain times to the cause of the wielder under his reason. Therefore when comparing Kant, and Aristotle you have a similarity in the role emotions play due to inherent nature of reason in their theories. Kants view of emotions was such that emotion should not dictate a bias in the decision to act on good will but should be reserved for expressing the persons own character. Kant

believed that good will is an action of duty while in duty, struggle, or just daily life but not by a passing notion such as emotions for example. He believed that you can in fact still feel emotions at any point, like love in relation to an act of good will or execution of duty, but never to the extent of it influencing your action. Therefore Kants views of emotions were, as Aristotles, an expression of a mans character. Likewise, Kant contrasts Hume in the essence that the mere variable of emotions does not corrupt his action due to reason. In closing, the similarities that Hume and Kant share concerning emotions role in the good life lies in the fact that neither find a place for them in their actions towards other human beings. Therefore, under either theory if one were to act on emotions the act itself would not be considered a moral action either by nullification on Kants end of corruption of Humes. Consequently, in any philosophers case emotions ought to play a secondary role if any to moral action or judgment. In relation to their notions of the role of emotions, the good life, and philosophies in general I personally believe that in each instance all are completely correct in their assertions. It is in fact true that in most deliberate cases of acting upon emotions when performing an action based upon you passions it will corrupt your judgment. The corruption of passion through emotion causes a deviation in direction and a deception in your reasoning thus causing you to end up with an outcome that could be contrary to your goal. In the case of emotions and good will I believe it to be true that an act of good will based on emotion is not an act of good will at all but passing notion. In the aspect of Karma in Hindu culture to perform a good act for its own sake begets good karma but to perform a good act for the sake of good karma gets you nowhere. As an

example lets say an individual sees a homeless person begging for money or food. If that individual, stirred by pity were to give the person a sandwich because of the emotion or because it makes their self feel better it would be meaningless and momentary. Whereas if the food were given out of the fact it is your categorical imperative to do so under any circumstance it is then good will. Lastly, to act on emotions in a reason based moral theory is contrary to the theory itself and inherently wrong.