Aristotle's Pursuit of Happiness and Kant's Ethics of Duty

Aristotle's Philosophy of Happiness

According to Aristotle, humanity aspires to a final goal, which unifies all purposes. All other goals are lesser purposes or means to reach this ultimate goal, which unifies, organizes, and prioritizes all others. For Aristotle, the ultimate goal is happiness (eudaimonia).

All human efforts and actions are directed towards this ultimate good inherent in human nature. It is necessary to specify what happiness is and how to achieve it. Aristotle states that happiness is not merely pleasure or wealth. While these may have some connection with the 'good life,' true happiness is understood as living according to the function most proper to humans.

The most characteristic function of human beings is derived from reason. This rational capacity is termed by Aristotle as theoretical life or contemplation. However, this state is not reached immediately but through the attainment and exercise of virtues (appropriate behavior).

Virtue is determined by reason and by the practical consideration of what a prudent human being would do in specific circumstances. It lies in a mean between two vices. For example:

• Vice (Excess): Rashness
• Virtue (Mean): Courage
• Vice (Defect): Cowardice

Achieving happiness also requires external conditions such as health, some wealth, and the love of family. However, these are not needed in large quantities and do not make a person happy, though they assist in the pursuit.

For Aristotle, ethics and politics are intertwined. There is no individual good that stands alone or contradicts the common good. The human being is a political animal whose life has no meaning outside of the polis (society). Only through social life and moral development is it possible to achieve the rational activity that leads to happiness. The polis (society) is an ethical community that guides individuals toward virtue and justice.

Kant's Ethics: Duty and Good Will

For Kant, virtue depends on a good will. What truly matters are the intentions of the subject performing the act. The intention is paramount, and the consequences of the action are never the sole determinant of its moral worth. Kant states that the only motive for a good will is the adherence to duty, out of pure respect for duty itself.

For Kant, there are three possible types of action:

• Contrary to duty: Actions that violate a moral obligation (e.g., taking notes when forbidden).
• In accordance with duty, but not from duty: Actions that align with duty but are performed for self-interest or inclination, not out of respect for the moral law (e.g., not taking notes because you don't want to, not out of respect for the rule).
• From duty: Actions performed purely out of respect for the moral law, regardless of inclination or consequences (e.g., refraining from taking notes purely out of respect for the rule).

But how can one know one's duty? According to Kant, the existence within us of a law knowable by reason and valid for all rational creatures is called the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative expresses an ethical obligation without any conditions. Having no specific content, it only expresses the imperative form of the law and is, at the same time, universal.

Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative in several ways, notably:

1. First Formulation (Universal Law): Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
2. Second Formulation (Humanity as an End): Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.