Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Kant thought that the highest morality springs from a sense of duty alone. Aristotle says (p. 23) that “the man who does not enjoy performing noble ac

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

2 comments:

KarenSG said...

I agree with Kant, that a person who does not enjoy performing noble acts cannot be happy because we are created as social creatures with a connection to one another. If one harbors begrudgement against performing noble acts for the benefit of one's fellow humans, such an attitude can create a sense of personal isolation. Relationships are woven with a series of gives and takes, and are important in forging the "connections" to others that promote "careers" etc, so one can earn a living, etc. The giving part is as essential as the taking. Also, one must be pretty hardened, and somewhat severed from one's own humanity if one does not have the urge to relieve another person's suffering through providing for basic needs where there may be poverty for that person: food, clothing, shelter, etc. On a superstitious level, if one does good, one can hope to have someone relieve one's own suffering one day, but if one is not compassionate toward others in their time of need, one may not have that confidence that the "fates" will be good to them on a future occasion. Overall, noble acts beget noble acts, which keeps humanity thriving.

February 14, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Chris Groeger said...

I find it hard to agree with either Kant or Aristotle on this point, at least judging from the texts we are working with.

Aristotle believes that "actions which conform to virtue are naturally pleasant" (p. 23). In other words, doing good makes you feel good. And not in the sense of "peace of mind" or "serenity," but simply in the sense of "pleasurable." This is puzzling. I can see finding pleasure in generosity, doing someone a favor, helping solve a social wrong or problem. I can also see a lot of situations in which moral action might be highly unpleasant or difficult, as in acting kindly toward someone who has wronged you, making a choice which involves sacrificing one good thing for the sake of another, donating a kidney, or risking one's life to protect others.

Kant's view involves no "pleasure" whatsoever. We act morally by following the commands of universal laws dictated to us by our use of reason, untainted by emotion. While this view is grim indeed, I think it is closer to a modern Western (and heavily Christian) sense of moral life as self-sacrifice, and the model of the moral life as that of a saint, someone like Mother Theresa. In this view, being good isn't easy because it's a struggle against our naturally sinful nature (blame it on Adam and Eve!). A "good life" in this sense is admirable, but most of us wouldn't want to live it.

Aristotle might be understood as talking about what we might call "the good life," a life of great satisfaction and adequate material goods in pursuit of things we think are important and that give us contentment and satisfaction. Indeed, I think his ideal could be summed up as the life of a "leisured gentleman-scholar." This clashes with another modern (and religious) idea, that morality doesn't have any connection with your status in life. The humblest person might turn out to actually be the moral giant.

I personally think it would take a combination of these views to describe what it is like to lead a moral life. It would include pleasure, joy, and contentment as well as unpleasant choices, struggles to overcome negative emotions, and self-sacrifice. It would even at times involve stern calculations like those Kant made about making sure that our actions could be a universal rule, because--as we often tell children--"what if everyone did that?"

February 15, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Post a Comment