Aristotle Vs Kant

Words: 1293
Pages: 6

1. When it comes to defining liberty, Johan Stuart Mill states liberty as, “By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political ruler”. Mill also states that liberty is, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Liberty is defined as protection from tyranny rulers, individual sovereignty, from mind and body with the limit of the government. (On Liberty, Pg4-5)

2. ****to Mills, Aristotle, and Bentham. Aristotle states that happiness is, “Happiness, then is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action” (Nicomachean Ethics, 7). Happiness is the only true end in itself, it is non-universal, and it is the ultimate good.

3. Kant’s categorical imperative can be described as deontological. Categorical applies to all ethical and moral decisions that are universal, while imperative is when one must follow the guidelines. Kant’s categorical imperative is “a rational standard by which all actions can be judge.”(Lecture, February 18). The concept of
…show more content…
Having knowledge and knowing that other senses have deceived Descartes knew that having knowledge and thinking meant that he exist. Knowing that he was being deceived, Descartes was thinking meaning he exists. Descartes argument of existing is based off the concept of thinking, or thinking one is being deceived. If one is thinking and their mind is working then even if they are being deceived they still exist simply for the fact they know what is happening. In a pragmatism view point Descartes case would not be a valid argument do the fact in pragmatism’s main idea is “It is useful because it is true, it is true because it is useful”. (Lecture April 22) So if one is being deceived then it is not true and it will not be useful. Or if one is being deceived then it is not useful because it’s not