Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche: Contrasting Ethical Philosophies
Ethics
Aristotle
In “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle argues that happiness is not solely tied to citizenship or rights within the polis, unlike Plato. He posits that a person living freely within a community can be happy, while someone outside of it cannot. For Aristotle, being human involves communication and rationality. Some consider his ethics eudaimonistic, focused on seeking happiness through fulfilling our role in nature. Happiness arises from both animalistic functions (vegetative and sensitive), leading to moral virtues found in the midpoint between extremes (e.g., courage between cowardice and recklessness, temperance). True happiness, however, comes from the rational function, encompassing intellectual virtues like art (techne), practical wisdom (phronesis), and theoretical wisdom (sophia), with the latter being most important. Aristotle also acknowledges the roles of fortune (luck) and habit in achieving happiness. Freedom lies in living according to our nature, though our ultimate end is determined by nature, not free will.
The Ethics of Kant
Kant’s ethics, presented in his “Critique of Pure Practical Reason,” addresses the question “What should I do?” He assumes humans are free and responsible, leading to two types of morality:
Material Morality
Material morality, deemed impossible by Kant, dictates what is good (e.g., pleasure) and how to achieve it. It is empirical (a posteriori), heteronomous (externally driven), and based on hypothetical judgments (if you do X, you will be happy). Therefore, material morality is consequentialist.
Formal Morality
Formal morality, considered possible by Kant, must be a priori (independent of experience), autonomous (based on practical reason), and based on categorical judgments (good in itself, regardless of consequences). These conditions are met by the categorical imperative: treat humanity always as an end and never merely as a means. Formal ethics does not guarantee happiness in this world. Kant introduces postulates of practical reason (God, free will, immortality of the soul) as necessary assumptions for morality to make sense. Acting according to one’s conscience, guided by the categorical imperative and seeking formal morality, does not guarantee happiness, but it is the right course of action.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche approaches ethics from a biological perspective, viewing life as irrational but accessible through art. He identifies two artistic forces:
Apollonian
Represents beauty, order, and ideals (e.g., Greek sculpture).
Dionysian
Represents chaos, instinct, and passion (e.g., orgies). Nietzsche sees this as the true nature of life, with Western morality being an Apollonian attempt to suppress the Dionysian, leading to hypocrisy. He advocates for a return to natural values. Recognizing the Apollonian facade leads to nihilism, which Nietzsche’s “superman” (Übermensch) overcomes by:
- Embracing life as the will to power and transcending good and evil (amor fati).
- Recognizing that while we are deemed free and responsible, we are ultimately innocent.
- Living playfully and freely like a child, embracing the concept of eternal recurrence (everything repeats infinitely), finding joy in the eternal present.