Aristotle is an ancient Greek philosopher who is considered as the ‘Father of Western Philosophy.’ He understood the basic tenants of existence and life. Observing society and drawing an inference based on experience and the environment he emanated from, Aristotle made tremendous impactful insights that altered the operative unit of association and relations. One vital contribution made by Aristotle is on virtue ethics. Being of Greek origin, the philosopher comprehended the ideology set out by their culture that entailed exuberant treating of prowess.

The society idolized those considered brave and daring who faced challenges (such as in wars and vigorous battles) and emerged as victors. The commoners were viewed as average individuals as the culture adored the brave warriors as glorious songs were composed and sung in praise of such individuals. During his time, the city Athens (where Aristotle lectured at) was in a transitional period that involved a breakaway from tradition from monarchies transiting to a fragile democracy. The new environment dawning on the Athenians was set up in a dilemma mode engulfed with shadows of the past connotations and the new liberties brought by the transformative phase. Aristotle’s ethics recognized the stalemate as it sought to create a bridge between the two, subjecting the society to a common good, i.e. a breakaway from an original authority of war and shielding from digression into the newly profound impersonal commercial ethos. The warrior characteristics were shrouded with adherence to family lines and obsession with training for battles. The emerging commercial ethos included an alignment of preference or likeability based on market transactions (formulated the social relations) and manipulation conducted by the use of money especially in politics. In his submissions, Aristotle put forth the argument that ‘neither framework holistically perfects what is most excellent and distinctive within human nature and its capacity for community.’  II.    Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is fundamentally built on the aspect of human activity being profound with an end deemed good. Some ends are incomplete as they entail a spiral effect drawing other activities into play whereas a complete one is where related aspects are ordered. Aristotle singled out happiness as the ultimate goal of any span of actions. In his view, being ultimately happy went beyond the natural aspects such as wealth, honor, and pleasures of the world, he put forth that it meant ultimate satisfaction drawn by the uppermost fulfillment as a human being in a lifetime.  The tenants of being human are detailed with being rational beings painted by holistic flourishment. According to B, Aristotle described virtue as ‘the right means for transitioning beyond brute animalism and toward realizing our rational and social essence so that we can flourish (the intentional cultivation of our distinctive powers that would otherwise remain inactive).’ Virtue construes a binding aspect of the extremes in the cultivation of a flexible mean standpoint. Aristotle further expounded on justice as being a set of virtues entailing the wisdom of alignment towards an ultimate good. Virtue ethics thus is concerned with raising humanity to an excellent social standing in a collective approach. Fronted by Jeremy Bentham, who placed humanity to be subjected to two facets of life, i.e. pleasure and pain, Utilitarianism described happiness as the avoidance of pain rather sensory pleasure. According to Bentham, happiness is naturally sought after without much thought (involuntary reaction) aligned to psychological feel. He put forth that human beings are naturally drawn to seeking their joy; however, Bentham was of the idea this should be construed to a greater picture entailing the maximization of the aspect subject to the greatest number of folks (interested parties). He argued that it is mandatory for pleasures to be weighted in an analogous quantitative manner given a situation. Ethics entails calculation of actions deemed to result in a pleasing mode, consequently expounding on Bentham’s idea of utility. The ‘principle of utility concerns the utility of any activity in contributing to the total of happiness gained or the total of pains diminished.‘ In the calculation of the quantitative sensory, the six criteria put forth encompassed duration, intensity, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, and purity. The conclusion to the above approach was recognition of the difficulty in calculation thereby informing general regulations of thumb in arriving at ethical decisions such as ‘almost always telling the truth being ideal.’ Utilitarianism is founded on the framework of sole concern on actions and their consequences. Additionally, money is singled out as the instrument of measuring pain and pleasure, increased accumulation of wealth meaning heightened satisfaction. Bentham was of the assumption that individuals sought own monetary empowerment with the end effect not being for societal sake rather personal benefit. The community depicted a fictitious body defined by summation of individualistic parts; consequently, society lost ethical value being as it is drawn to the persuasion of commercial interests. Similarly, politics (a contractual artifice) according to Bentham is fiction; an aspect the society isn’t naturally leaning. John Stuart Mill put forth a more sophisticated approach to utilitarianism building on tenants submitted by Bentham and rectifying where deemed necessary. His recordings were taken in the 19th century, a period when industrial capitalism onset illumination of its drawbacks. Mill observed avoid by philosophers on consensus concerning the definition of morality. He defines utilitarianism as the outstanding principal of happiness. Altering Bentham’s input regarding diverse forms of pleasure being fundamental, Mill asserts that for humans the aspect differs with that of animals thereby reaching a similar conclusion as his predecessor on the difficulty of quantification. Mill terms the pursuant of moral principles done by individuals in connection to resulting rewards as external sanctions (Aristotle defines it as outer ends). Mill points out moral feelings as a natural development of our being aligned on a social aspect. In a business standpoint, the ideology set precedence for cooperatives. Justice and utility are bound by the yearning of revenge and existence of victim of injustice thereby informing the aspect of ‘right.’ Immanuel Kant is the founder of Deontology fronted during a time of liberties. In his view, morality shouldn’t be pegged to an underlying aspect (ulterior motives). In his criticism of utilitarianism, he faulted the idea of ethical rightness of viewing an activity based on the perception of the pleasure construed and founding morality by particular pleasures. Kant was of the view that morality is drawn from the tenants of human freedom inherent to our rational capacity of choice (an alignment to Aristotle and contrast to utilitarianism in observing humans as rational animals). Kant singles reason as the towering instrument of humankind thereby observing a self-contradictory view of the aspect in utilitarianism. Consequently, liberty is the end goal of choice in self-determination. Kant submits that one should act in a manner not contradicting one’s autonomy. Morality in this sense is subject to the right as opposed to the case of utilitarianism that doesn’t consider the rightness of an act rather the yield (pleasure) of undertaking a certain action. Deontology draws its tenants on the ideal submission of doing unto others that you expect to be unto you meaning human life should be treated with value. Kant’s approach on rationality aligns majorly with Aristotle differing with utilitarianism that questions choice by utility rather than morality. Utilitarianism falls short in critical identification of alienation and oppression given the ideologies submitted lacks unique human nature. Virtue ethics and utilitarianism differ in their definition of happiness, the former observes it as a foundation of being human while for the latter it lacks human essence as it aligns to the derivation of pleasure. Additionally, in the aspect of value, virtue ethics has an object as the drawing point, and as for utilitarianism, it confers to own desire of something. The transformative nature depicted in Aristotle’s submissions distinguishes virtue ethics from utilitarianism, the latter suggests the aspect is drawn to bare inclinations lacking higher development, and deontology, which bases its argument on restraint of natural inclinations and desires holistically (the sense of society for virtue ethics is holism whereas for utilitarianism it is atomism).

The development of the society, to a multiplex unit inherent to a social surplus with advanced productive means to meet profound needs, explains the historical origins of the ethical issues. Aristotle formulated his ethical paradigms based on observation of the economy in a social sense construing to an ideal end. The sophistication of the society, relevant to modern life, subjects Kantian deontology and utilitarianism as equally significant.

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?