What are the similarities and differences in the ethical theories of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant?

Kant and Aristotle have 1 thing in common, but many differences. Both men assert/argue that Ethics has a rational basis, in distinct contrast to David Hume's "sentimental" basis, Mill's utilitarian-pleasure basis, and some so-called "positivists" argued-for "non-existent" rational basis for ethics. Hume correctly pointed out that most moralists make a series of IS or IS NOT statements and then conclude with OUGHT [to do] or OUGHT NOT [do] so-called "moral" or "ethical" conclusions --- which is an irrational way to argue [by changing the "IS" or "IS NOT" verb of one's premises into a different verb (OUGHT TO DO or OUGHT NOT TO DO) in the conclusion of a so-called "ethical/(moral)" argument]. Hume was correct to point out such a fallacy. Those who entirely agree with Hume's subsequent thinking on ethics [based on "kindlier sentiments"] do not think that ethics has a rational grounding. Kant disagreed and thus his rational "Grounding/Foundation of the metaphysics of morals" thesis in opposition to those who think that ethics has no rational ground/basis. As is typical with Kant, he sought an "apriori" [grounded in reason alone] pure principle of practical/(doing) reason, which he supposed he found in his so-called CATEGORICAL (is) IMPERATIVE (ought) 1st principle, which was, quote: KANT: "ACT only according to that maxim by which you can, at the same time, WILL that it should become a UNIVERSAL LAW." [Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals; Second Section 421]. This "Categorical imperative" logically follows from Kant's thesis that the only thing that is good in and of itself is a GOOD WILL. And a "good will" follows universal law, without regard to the consequences, according to Kant. Thus his ethics is described as "nonconsequentialist", in contrast to Mill's "utilitarian" or consequentialist ethics. Aristotle's Ethics stands midway between Kant's and Mill's contrary ethical theories. For Kant consequences don't count. For Mill only good consequences [not the motive or will] count. But for Aristotle, both the consequences and the motive or will count in morals, as well as various circumstances, because his stated 1st principle of Ethics is "TRUTH in agreement with RIGHT DESIRE." What Aristotle understood long before Hume brought up the IS - OUGHT fallacy, was that an OUGHT TO DO "first principle" of Ethics, cannot be logically refuted by any number of "IS" statements. Aristotle points out that ethical or "OUGHT" 1st principle in Book VI, Ch. 2 of the Nicomachean Ethics, saying, in short, quote ARISTOTLE:

"Of the intellect which is contemplative [i.e. speculative or theoretical KB], not PRACTICAL [i.e. ethical or moral; KB], nor productive [the making/productive intellect KB], the good and bad states are TRUTH and FALSITY respectively (for this is the work of everything INTELLECTUAL), while of the part which is PRACTICAL [i.e the "doing" aspect of an intellect KB] and INTELLECTUAL the good state is TRUTH in agreement with RIGHT DESIRE." [N.E. 1139a 26 - 31] Kant disputed DESIRE in his formulation of an ethical theory, whereas Aristotle made RIGHT DESIRE central to his ethical first principle. Kant asserted GOOD WILL rather than RIGHT DESIRE to "ground" ethics. Quote KANT: Nothing in the world --- indeed nothing even beyond the world --- can possibly be conceived which could be called GOOD without qualification except a GOOD WILL. ["Foundation..." First Section; 393]. Aristotle disagreed pointing out that there are many things far superior to "man" [and his variable will; good vs. bad], such as "the cosmos" for example. Furthermore his ethical first principle [Truth in agreement with right desire] implies that, in effect: Every human being OUGHT TO DESIRE that which is TRULY GOOD for her/himself and nothing else. The above is a SELF EVIDENT and rational 1st principle of ethics. All anyone need do to prove that it is self evident is to rationally contradict the principle or rationally state its contrary proposition. Both the contrary and contradictory propositions amount to Everyone ought to desire what is truly bad for themselves and nothing else or Everyone ought not desire what is truly good for them and nothing else --- to which no rational human being will assent. So Kant's ethical theory requires a perfectly rational/good will --- which Aristotle and others would only attribute to gods or God, but not human beings. Aristotle's ethical CODE, rather than theory, rests on a self-evident first principle of desire, relative to goods which we ought to desire and which are truly good for ourselves and others. But even our good/right desires can't be made into universal laws for others, given individual differences, aptitudes and circumstances. Kevin

Source:
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics; Kant's Foundation of The Metaphysics of Morals