Kant vs Aristotle

I did this as an assignment in my ethics class. I thought it made a very good point about partisanship, so I decided to post it here. Also, I think it can be related to other insignificant differences, such as religion, culture, etc.

Kant's theories of austere ethics make high demands. Kant insisted that "one must be motivated exclusively by rational commitment to the universal moral law" (Waller, 2008, pg 188). He attributed this capacity to the powers of will and reason. Kant believed that humans must strive to "rise above all natural feeling and inclinations" (Waller, 2008, pg 188). To Kant, moral activity in human beings was a special, unnatural ability honed by the use of reason. He asked human beings to rise above what he believed to be our natural state and behave in a moral and ethical fashion.
Aristotle believed that human being were naturally moral and good, and that we only needed to develop this natural tendency in us. This development of our moral goodness, according to Aristotle made the high demand that our actions be what he called "virtuous." To Aristotle, "the ideal of virtuous behavior is doing the right thing because you want to do the right thing, because you desire to act virtuously” (Waller, 2008, pg 189). Aristotle asked human beings to do good for its sake, and not to do good for hope of reward or fear of punishment.
These two theories, while seemingly founded in opposite beliefs about the state of human nature, make nearly the exact demand upon human beings. To act in a moral and ethical fashion for the sake of doing a moral or ethical act. To not take into account reward, punishment, or any other middle ground consequence. Kant says to do good to escape natural human immorality; Aristotle says to do good to develop natural human virtue. It is my opinion that this common thread in these two theories is what we must take from them, to do good for the sake of doing good. The foundation of mysterious powers or natural order of human beings is nearly irrelevant at this point. We know that doing good for the sake of doing good is the right thing, and it is my opinion that we must move on with that as the new foundation. Are we naturally ethical? I really do not know. On one hand I see in the news, human beings doing the most evil things to each other. On another, I see people doing the most kind things to complete strangers without asking for reward. In my opinion, it is less important to know what we are "naturally" inclined towards then it is to strive to do good. We already have an answer to both suggested theories of how we develop our moral and ethical capacity. Use reason or use virtue, either way the goal is to become a good, moral, and ethical person or society.


Reference:
Waller, B. (2008). Consider ethics: theory, readings, and contemporary issues. New York: Pearson Longman