Introduction
Philosophically, ethics refers to moral rights and wrongs, as well as the good and bad aspects featured in a philosophical theory based on what has been justified as morally right or wrong. Such determinations are applicable in a code or system governed by moral rules and principles. Therefore, most institutions are bound by such principles and are obligated to portray them to the fullest, which is inevitable because ethics plays a critical role in guiding individuals and organizational stakeholders in telling the truth, living up to their promises, and helping others attain their needs.
However, several controversies have arisen regarding how ethics in philosophy is manipulated, hence, seeking an informed framework that underlies the day-to-day lives of stakeholders in charge. In this regard, philosophers were compelled to rise to the occasion and shape the norms of ethics, which will play a crucial role in informing the decision-making process. In the long run, this will have a positive impact by steering people away from unjust results. The text will explore the ethical views of philosophers such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Bentham, and Mill.
Aristotle’s Ethical View
According to Aristotle, ethics is the study of character, which has long been built around avenues where people are supposed to attain a commendable character. Thus, they are always virtuous characters and the building blocks for happiness and well-being. Aristotle’s main ethical argument was to ensure that in every event, people should be in a position to give an account of a good man leading a good life, as well as describe the legitimate ways to achieve this, thereby becoming good through the process.
One of the ways of becoming one, as presented by Aristotle, is to conduct oneself in accordance with the general principles of a good human, as evidenced by the ability to actualize what is unique to human nature (Jackson, 15). Virtues, the element guiding Aristotle’s ethical view, are inevitably divided into two types: intellectual virtues that primarily affect the soul responsible for reasoning. The other element of virtues embraced by Aristotle is the moral virtues, which concern the part of the human soul enriched with the ability to follow reasoning, rather than acting on its own, and are later expressed through passions and actions.
Concerning the two virtues, Aristotle asserts that intellectual virtues can be achieved by applying learning concepts and receiving instruction (Jackson, 15). On the other hand, he affirms that moral virtues can be attained through the outcomes of particular behaviors and habits, though all are centered on producing a good human being. Therefore, people can cultivate virtue by following instructions that guide them on how to be virtuous and adopting habits that lead to such behaviors. Feelings always progress through stages, as people have the upper hand in managing their emotions, which ultimately determines their essential goodness in the long run. Aristotle uniquely articulates the virtues that involve striking a balance between a specific passion and cultivating it to a certain recommended extent (Pakaluk, 6).
However, all virtues are subject to dangers, such as failing to work within the limits of all the extremities. The most contented humans, as in this case, are those who attain or serve with the virtues at the right time, hence, feeding them right and in line with the correct occasions. Therefore, Aristotle concludes by stating that the best and most ethical life a human can live is one devoted to embracing all the stated qualities, actions, and passions.
Ethical View According to Thomas Aquinas
Unlike Aristotle, who argues that humans are destined to attain a specific function guided by their behaviors, Aquinas argues that God created human beings and that what God has put in place cannot be restructured by anyone else (Aquinas, 10). In this regard, Aquinas determined that there are specific intrinsic connections between virtues, such as happiness and the human good, and other human virtues, following the precepts of practical reasoning.
Since Aquinas believes that every human being is meant to attain a specific life goal, he is confident that, by nature, humans have an end goal that they must attain as directed by the Creator of the universe. The direction of such life deliverables is toward ethical outcomes, where no single manipulation will deter them from reaching their anticipated destination. Therefore, humans attain such ends by conducting themselves in the most humane conduct, courtesy of intellect and relevant will (Aquinas, 16). Ethically, such virtuous acts can be deemed satisfactory only if all the subjects appraise the correct and relevant moral principles and correctly utilize them.
Aquinas’s ethical thought implies that there is no single avenue through which people can attain complete and final happiness. He attests that it is only the most supernatural being, “God,” who can attain complete and finished happiness since it consists of beatitude and experiences (Aquinas, 40). With such ends, Aquinas stated that ends always lie beyond what can genuinely be attained through natural human capacities.
Aquinas affirms that humans need virtues and God, who will guide them through challenging encounters. However, Aquinas concurs with Aristotle’s ethics that an act will be determined as good or bad depending on its fate, whether it contributes to or deters humans from achieving the expected human ends and goals. According to Aquinas and Aristotle, happiness can be measured and determined through the presence of intellectual and moral virtues, which provide the capacity to understand the nature of human happiness and what exactly motivates people to seek happiness rightly and consistently.
Immanuel Kant’s Ethics
In his ethical view, Kant has been concerned that transcendental idealism advocates a distinction between what people experience and what cannot be experienced in the natural world. These elements include all the invisibilities but powerful experiences, such as the existence of God and the soul (Ellington, 12). According to Kant, it is only possible for humans to know the things they can experience but lack the imperative touch on them. Therefore, he posits that with the notion of the categorical imperative, a universal ethical principle asserts that people should respect humanity as portrayed by others at all costs.
Further, he argues that people should conduct themselves and present themselves with respect for the rules that apply to everyone. Moral law has been Kant’s key element of advocacy, which is a truth of reason, hence, binding all rational creatures governed by the same moral law (Ellington, 17). To narrow it down, Kant contends that in any case, people should embrace the steadfastness of responding and acting rationally to achieve positive and lawful outcomes.
Three aspects guide Kant’s ethical view: the belief in free will, the existence of a supreme being, God, and the immortality of the soul. This virtue was derived from Aquinas’ ethical view that God is the determinant of all destinies. Even though you cannot engage them physically, their reflections are influential. The result is that human souls might be immortal, and God must have been responsible for such designation while guiding the principle of justice (Ellington, 17). Universal laws are always evident and uniquely presented by Kant in his ethical view, which holds that none should be taught, but rather should have the sense to act and present themselves justly.
Ultimately, the golden rule prevails over the ethical view of Kant, a perspective that no philosopher has addressed. He was clear and succinct that ethics is about obeying this rule, which can only be attained by acting in the same way one wants others to act —a concept that results in contentment. This is being rational, bearable, and tolerant of other people around us. In addition, the golden rule is quite exceptional and does not rely on existing principles; rather, it reminds individuals of their moral obligations and duties.
Bentham and Mill’s Ethical View
Bentham and Mill’s views on ethics are clustered on human satisfaction and the rate of utilities acquired through goods and services, hence, utilitarianism. Their primary aim was to justify the principle of utilitarianism, which is the basic foundation of morals. Bentham and Mill argued that actions are always right in proportion as they promote generalized human happiness.
In line with this, human actions are motivated by pleasures and pains, with equal weight given to pain (Bentham and Mill, 23). Therefore, utilitarianism states that humans have laid their higher interests on pleasure and satisfaction. In this regard, they always believe that the best and most good act is the one whose result is the greatest pleasure and the highest contentment of several individuals with it.
This view opposes Kant’s by affirming that it is only interested in outcomes, regardless of the path followed by the bearers. Kant considered that even if the results are significant, the efforts towards such plausible outcomes should be commenced in the most godly way. However, they operate based on Aquinas’s view that ethics are consequential, and that good morals are always intended to produce positive consequences, while unexpected negative consequences are outcomes of negative energy (Bentham and Mill, 26).
The utility herein addresses the level of contentment acquired through pleasure-seeking processes. The best and most pleasing personalities are those who highly utilize the opportunities and available resources. This becomes the unique philosophical element of ethics, as it posits that high faculties of pleasure contribute the highest motivation, and the reverse is also true. It means that individuals’ intentions have no room within Bentham and Mill’s ethical views, as all actions have a cause.
Conclusion
Upon the completion of the intensive ethical analysis of the philosophers, I strongly concur with Aquinas’s conception that, despite living in a dynamic world, justice among individuals should be a general virtue since it does not benefit specific persons, but serves the welfare of the entire community. This is evident because everything occurs with a cause and has an effect.
Hence, it should be perceived in a way that embodies the happiness, goodness, and satisfaction of the entire community, rather than causing harm to the same communities. This serves as a control mechanism for the actions of societal individuals, ultimately leading them to do more good than harm. This is in contrast to philosophers such as Kant, who dwell on the impact of idealism, and Bentham and Mill, who viewed ethics as based on the level of human satisfaction.
Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas, et al. On Law, Morality, and Politics. Hackett Publishing, 2003.
Aquinas, Thomas, Richard J. Regan, and William P. Baumgarth. On law, morality, and politics. Hackett Publishing, 2003.
Ellington, J. “Kant’s grounding for the metaphysics of morals.” Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.
Jackson, Henry, ed. The Fifth Book of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. University Press, 1879.
Mill, John Stuart, Jeremy Bentham, and John Troyer. The classical utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Hackett Publishing, 2003.
Pakaluk, Michael, ed. Nicomachean Ethics: Books VIII and IX. Oxford University Press on Demand, 1998.