Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 22, 2022 20:17:05 GMT
Aristotle: every moral virtue has its polar opposite vice. It is all on various prisms. You shouldn't be too far on either side, but should strike a balance between the two (often referred to as the “golden mean"
Aristotle’s moral theory is individualist and reward-based. You choose to be moral to live a good life, with a chance to achieve the ultimate reward: Eudaimonia. Aristotle’s moral behavior is empirical. It is what the best of the Athenians do. In articulation, he describes it as avoiding extremes. For example, you don’t be reckless or a coward. You find the golden mean between the two: Courage. Aristotle presupposes all existence potentially good, bad a privation, and evil a radical condition in which all moral base is lost.
Kant: all of ethics is a matter of reason. Every ethical question can be answered by the Categorical Imperative,bevery ethical question can be answered with a simple, exceptionless axiom. You come to that axiom with a really basic test: if everyone everywhere did “x action”, would the world be better or worse for it?
Kant’s moral theory is duty-based and collectivist. You have got to do (sacrifice) things for the state or the society because it is what it is. You perform your moral duties he happens to know without expecting anything in exchange, not even a mere recognition of your performance. Otherwise it could be an exchange after all, and not a duty. Kant presupposes evil a fixed part of human thought and trying to be good an ongoing struggle.
Aristotle’s moral theory is individualist and reward-based. You choose to be moral to live a good life, with a chance to achieve the ultimate reward: Eudaimonia. Aristotle’s moral behavior is empirical. It is what the best of the Athenians do. In articulation, he describes it as avoiding extremes. For example, you don’t be reckless or a coward. You find the golden mean between the two: Courage. Aristotle presupposes all existence potentially good, bad a privation, and evil a radical condition in which all moral base is lost.
Kant: all of ethics is a matter of reason. Every ethical question can be answered by the Categorical Imperative,bevery ethical question can be answered with a simple, exceptionless axiom. You come to that axiom with a really basic test: if everyone everywhere did “x action”, would the world be better or worse for it?
Kant’s moral theory is duty-based and collectivist. You have got to do (sacrifice) things for the state or the society because it is what it is. You perform your moral duties he happens to know without expecting anything in exchange, not even a mere recognition of your performance. Otherwise it could be an exchange after all, and not a duty. Kant presupposes evil a fixed part of human thought and trying to be good an ongoing struggle.
