Compare and contrast the ethical theories of Aristotle and Immanuel Essay

Compare and contrast the ethical theories of Aristotle and Im earthly concernuel Kant - Essay ExampleMan should be oriented by entities in his or her environment of the definition of what is mor tout ensembley dear(p) or non. However, if one should ask, what makes an ethical person? What are the characteristics that make him a good person? Aristotle and Kants ethical theories have laid out arguments claiming mans ethics. However, there are signifi elicitt ideas that make one conjecture triumph over the other. Aristotle and Kant speak of the highest good that man can do to society and his own one that is not to be done just for the rice beer of being called ethical, getting material possessions or pleasing comments in exchange for it. It is done because it is good in itself (Johnson). Both also speak of happiness as ends of being virtuous. However, according to Aristotle, a virtuous life leading to happiness is not achieved without the possession of additional goods as well. A lif e perceived to be perfect by many, a life with wealth, power, acquaintances, and a physique highly appreciated by everyone. With this life also comes good upbringing, and good habits. Without these things, man go out have the difficulty of reachinging a virtuous status. Aristotle insists that it is necessary to have these desirable things to be able to reach happiness. In a negative light, this is foul for those who are born without much fortune. If a woman has unacceptable physical features and is not wealthy enough, this theory already forecasts her future or to narrow it, her might to push for a virtuous life. Another weakness of the theory is the limitation of which it is applicable to. Although it does not claim that only fortunate people are essential to be virtuous, it gives them an advantage to such a life. He points out that if a person who has these things, he will be raised to have good habits and with good habits, he is able to suss out how to be virtuous. In reali ty, ominous people also achieve a virtuous life. It is within their strategies in life on how to get there. It is not dictated on what a person owns but how people perceive how they life supposed to be and how they would be able to reach that kind of life. Also another argument of Aristotle, because of this kind of upbringing, man will not have any reason for being truthful, openhanded, and brave because it is how one is brought up. Well, unfortunate people can also have this kind of upbringing without material and even physically acceptable attributes. They do well without asking anything in wages because of their misfortune but they do well because they feel that it is the right thing to do and doing such will lead them to some state of happiness. In all fairness to Aristotle, he provides an ideal state of virtuous life that one ought to pursue. Kant, on the other hand, does not provide a status for which virtue can be obtained. He does not give material possession and physical attributes importance when it comes to being a moral person. He said that virtue does not insure well being (Johnson). Kant proposes that man should be rational with his actions based on the standards of rationality. There should be universality in a sense that mans actions should be widely accepted by others as well. Kants theory suggests that in order for man to achieve a morality that is sizable enough to compel one from doing injustice to another or to himself, man will undergo challenges in a sense that one can learn what is good and what is bad. He also proposes that there is an