Moral Behavior Aquinas and Aristotle vs. Kant - 1356 Words

Moral Behavior: Aquinas and Aristotle vs. Kant When comparing between the philosophies of St. Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle and those of Immanuel Kant when regarding moral behavior, there are some very fundamental differences. On one hand, you have Kant’s autonomous perspective on behavior morality, in which you give the law to yourself. On the other hand, you have the heteronomy views of Aristotle and Aquinas which concludes that one can measure their conduct against an external force. Kant’s views can very shortly summarized as always acting in such a way so as to other rational people as an end and never as only a means. Aquinas and Aristotle believed that moral behavior was that which is compromised of the nature of the act, its†¦show more content†¦Duty is what motivates the individual and guides them towards doing good acts. Lastly are the categorical imperatives, which are the rational and moral obligations that are universal and non-situational. They are to which duty is subservient. To understand T homas Aquinas and Aristotle on their views of moral behavior, the first idea that must be grasped is to what ends are moral acts taken? According to Aquinas, happiness was considered to be the highest goal of mankind, to which moral behavior guided the individual. More specifically, perfect happiness was the ultimate goal which only came from God since his very nature his happiness is infinite. In Right and Reason, Fr. Austin Fagothey elaborates, â€Å"God] alone can fully satisfy all man’s desires. Therefore God alone is the object which can give man all the happiness he craves, and hence is man’s objective last end (78)†. To achieve infinite happiness through morality, one must begin to understand what actions affect the morality of an act. First off is the very nature of the act itself, which can be either morally good or bad. While an act that is initially morally good can be made bad by other factors soon to be discussed, a morally bad act remains always mo rally bad with no factors being able to change its nature. Secondly, there is the motivation for the act, which is the intention that the individual hopes to achieve by the act beyond the act itself. Third and