Kant's Duty Ethics Versus Aristotle and Epicurus

Ethics: Duty vs. Happiness

Immanuel Kant was a renowned philosopher who significantly shifted philosophical thought, influencing many authors after him. This analysis reflects on his ethical duty compared with the ideas of earlier authors.

Kant's Categorical Imperative

Kant aimed to develop a unique ethical framework applicable universally, enabling the distinction between right and wrong in any situation. According to Kant, theoretical reason makes judgments against practical reason, which are mandatory. These form the pillars of ethics, devoid of empirical content because experience does not provide universal knowledge. These principles originate from our being a priori. Kant distinguishes between categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Categorical imperatives embody universal values, while hypothetical imperatives serve specific interests. Kant's categorical formulations lead to the conclusion that we should treat others as we wish to be treated, not merely as means to an end, and act as if we were the lawmakers.

Aristotle's Pursuit of Happiness

One of the authors whose ethics contrasts with Kant's is Aristotle, who posited that the purpose of our existence is happiness. Aristotle argued that people often confuse ends with means, adding that happiness is inherently empty and is filled through material and spiritual goods, always utilizing our power of choice.

Epicurus and the Ethics of Pleasure

Another ethical framework to compare is Epicurus's ethics of pleasure, which states that the end of life is pleasure, but it must be moderate, controlled, and rational. This pleasure addresses the basic needs of both our body and soul. For Epicurus, the human being is divided into body and soul, with the pleasures of the latter being superior. However, evil lies in human suffering, which must be avoided at all costs to prevent conflict between body and soul.

Conclusion: A Personal Perspective

In my opinion, Kantian ethics are the most appropriate. Aristotelian ethics, despite seeking a middle ground, cannot be universally applied and are based on external goods. Epicurean ethics are the most divergent, as they prioritize seeking the maximum state of pleasure and avoiding pain and suffering, which introduces uncertainty about right and wrong. Kant's ethics reflect universal values and objectives applicable in society, although they can be somewhat extreme in their emphasis on duty. Despite this, I believe this duty is more comprehensive than the hypothetical imperatives prevalent in our society.