Question

3 year Kant v. Aristotle Immanuel Kant argued that the only proper motivation for action is that it is done "from duty" alone. Aristotle suggests that the trully virtuous person will do the right thing because they have a love or concern for the good of something. Is an act performed "from duty" alone any less meritorious than an act performed "from a disposition of character" to promote the good or welfare of another? Why or why not? Reply QuoteEmail Author

Answer 1

Deontological Ethics as proposed by Immanuel Kant suggests that an act would be considered ethical if one fulfills one's duty without worrying about the outcome or consequences of that act. Thus duty ethics ignores those that are affected by the actions. Virtue ethics on the other hand, places the importance on the doer of the action rather than the action itself. Thus it places the emphasis on the person. If the person who does the action and the person's intentions are good, then the person's actions would be considered as virtuous and the actions of those whose characters are not good would be considered as vice. I think virtue ethics scores better compared to the duty ethics because people would be blinded by their duty and not others' welfare in duty ethics, whereas one would do only good to oneself and others in virtue ethics.

Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.