0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
69 vues11 pages
This document provides a summary of the ethical theories of Aristotle and Kant. While they differed in their scientific and philosophical views, their ethical theories were more similar than commonly understood. For Aristotle, morality was based not just on the will but also good emotions, pleasures, and feelings. He believed in moral principles arising from human nature and reason. Kant defined morality strictly through moral laws and duties. However, Aristotle's virtue of justice roughly corresponds to Kant's perfect duties, and Aristotle's list of virtues corresponds to Kant's imperfect duties. Therefore, the behaviors each recommends are fairly similar.
This document provides a summary of the ethical theories of Aristotle and Kant. While they differed in their scientific and philosophical views, their ethical theories were more similar than commonly understood. For Aristotle, morality was based not just on the will but also good emotions, pleasures, and feelings. He believed in moral principles arising from human nature and reason. Kant defined morality strictly through moral laws and duties. However, Aristotle's virtue of justice roughly corresponds to Kant's perfect duties, and Aristotle's list of virtues corresponds to Kant's imperfect duties. Therefore, the behaviors each recommends are fairly similar.
This document provides a summary of the ethical theories of Aristotle and Kant. While they differed in their scientific and philosophical views, their ethical theories were more similar than commonly understood. For Aristotle, morality was based not just on the will but also good emotions, pleasures, and feelings. He believed in moral principles arising from human nature and reason. Kant defined morality strictly through moral laws and duties. However, Aristotle's virtue of justice roughly corresponds to Kant's perfect duties, and Aristotle's list of virtues corresponds to Kant's imperfect duties. Therefore, the behaviors each recommends are fairly similar.
a little bac!round to better understand the ethical theories o" Aristotle and Kant# which turn out to be much closer to each other than the di""erences in their scienti"ic and philosophic views mi!ht lead you to believe$ KANT Everythin! in nature is determined$ The body is part o" nature$ There"ore# everythin! bodily is determined$ %I$e$ physical movements# emotions# and desires$& Aristotle and Kant Lecture 2 Thus# Kant can say that our emotions and desires don't have moral worth because they are not "ree$ The will is NOT part o" nature$ It is the ability o" our reason to "orm (ma)ims* or principles o" action$ The will is "ree$ +ence# it ,AN have moral worth precisely because it is "ree$ The will is not part o" nature# accordin! to Kant# because it's part o" our rational "aculties# which impose order upon the perceptions o" the senses# and by (nature* he means the world o" the senses# the physical world$ This may sound weird# but Kant's way o" thinin! is part o" a philosophical tradition stemmin! "rom -lato# accordin! to which Aristotle and Kant Lecture 3 the physical world is NOT the ultimate reality$ In the "orm in which it appeared in the period in which modern science arose %i$e$ since the seventeenth century&# Kant's view is more problematic than -lato's$ In this view the physical world is a vast machine in which everythin! that happens is determined by the physical laws o" nature$ Our minds e)ist# but we don't now how to connect them with our bodies$ +ence# it is called (the mind.body dualism$* /es# it sounds weird# but is it any weirder than biolo!y pro"essors re"usin! to say what li"e is0 As Keeton# the author o" the biolo!y te)t I cited mi!ht say# (+ey# lemme alone$ Aristotle and Kant Lecture 4 I'm a biolo!ist# not a philosopher$ +ow should I now what li"e is0 I'm only a poor biolo!ist$* -erhaps you can see "rom this e)ample that the mind.body dualism isn't somethin! that a "ew obscure philosophers thou!ht up$ It pervades our thinin!$ It pervades our science$ Another conse1uence o" this view is that# strictly speain!# animals are 2ust machines$ So we can do with them what we want$ Now o" course# the avera!e person doesn't believe that# but the avera!e person as well as modern scientists still doesn't now how to overcome this dualism# and this puts them at a disadvanta!e when ar!uin! with people Aristotle and Kant Lecture 5 who don't have scruples about wipin! out and otherwise messin! up the environment$ +ence# when biolo!y came to the "ore amon! the sciences in the nineteenth century with Darwin and others# it had a materialist view o" the world that contradicted a more (normal* view o" biolo!ical or!anisms in which we tend to re!ard them as more than 2ust machines$ The conclusion you mi!ht draw "rom this is that# despite the wonders o" modern science# a lot o" modern thinin! is con"used and sel".contradictory$ That is a correct conclusion$ And "or the most part# the (philosophers#* that is# the philosophy Aristotle and Kant Lecture 6 pro"essors# or (pro"essional philosophers* as they o"ten call themselves# share this con"usion$ ARISTOTLE There is no mind.body dualism in Aristotle and biolo!ical or!anisms are not machines$ To say they are (alive#* accordin! to him# means that they have a principle o" or!ani3ation and sel".movement called the psych or (soul$* I put the En!lish word (soul* in 1uotation mars because it has reli!ious connotations# which Aristotle's term does not# but it's the closest word we have in En!lish to translate his term$ All Aristotle meant was that the various "unctions o" biolo!ical or!anisms are not separate components o" a machine# but that Aristotle and Kant Lecture 7 to!ether they comprise an or!anic whole that "unctions as a unity$ That unity is very dependent on the di""erent or!ans o" the body that comprise it# so that when the or!anism dies# in Aristotle's view# this unity doesn't survive$ The (soul* is the "unctional unity o" the basic bodily "unctions# and the mind is its hi!hest power$ The mind too "orms a unity within the overall unity o" the soul$ A!ain I emphasi3e that the mind is a power o" the soul# so the two are very closely connected$ The mind is the power o" the soul by which we thin$ The brain is the physical or!an where the mind is located# but the brain is obviously part o" the body and the mind is part o" the soul$ +ence# to say that we have ("ree will* %to use the modern term& means Aristotle and Kant Lecture 8 that the mind has the power o" thinin! and o" movin! the body$ In this brie" lecture I won't !o into the details o" Aristotle's e)planation o" 2ust how the mind thins# how it moves the body# how Aristotle e)plains the nature o" consciousness# how he avoids the mind. body dualism that has pla!ued modern philosophy AND modern science# and so on$ I trust you will be so ind as to tae my word that whether or not his e)planation is correct# he does have such an e)planation and Kant and the other modern philosophers do not$ +ence# Kant has to -OSIT "ree will and the mind's ability to move the body# but he has no way o" e)plainin! it$ O" course not 4he thins biolo!ical or!anisms are really Aristotle and Kant Lecture 9 machines5 6ut I don't want to belabor this point$ Aristotle's Ethics and Kant's Ethics The bottom line %"or our discussion o" ethics& is that "or Aristotle# unlie Kant# it's not 2ust the will that is !ood and moral$ Aristotle doesn't have to de"ine morality strictly in terms o" moral laws lie the cate!orical imperative$ 7e can have !ood emotions and pleasures# and !ood "eelin!s toward each other# somethin! lie the hi!her pleasures o" 8ill and Epicurus$ Aristotle DOES have moral commands or principles or laws# based on the overarchin! virtue o" 2ustice# but they arise out o" our nature as bein!s possessin! reason$ In other Aristotle and Kant Lecture 10 words# when we "ully reali3e our nature as animals possessin! reason# our emotions and desires and our reason TEND to be in harmony with teach other$ The 6ottom Line Despite these "undamental di""erences# based on their underlyin! scienti"ic and philosophical theories# their ethical theories turn out to have more in common than they are commonly understood to have$ 9or e)ample# consider Kant's per"ect and imper"ect duties# or to use his alternative terms "or them# strict and meritorious duties$ Aristotle's virtue o" 2ustice rou!hly corresponds to Kant's per"ect or strict duties# and the list o" virtues that Aristotle Aristotle and Kant Lecture 11 provides rou!hly corresponds to Kant's imper"ect or meritorious duties$ +ence4here is the shatterin! conclusion4 the behavior or li"estyle that each recommends is "airly similar$ That statement immediately has to be 1uali"ied a little$ 9or one thin!# Kant did not understand Aristotle's concept o" ethical virtue4believe it or not# he never read Aristotle# who was out o" "avor in the time when Kant lived4but 7E can see the similarity# even i" Kant himsel" didn't$ Even brilliant minds lie Kant aren't per"ect$ On the other hand# we can appreciate Kant's brilliance more when we see how much he did philosophically with the limited tools he had to wor with$