Ethical Behavior and Aristotle

Ethics: "What Does It Mean to be an Ethical Person?"

Kant and Aristotle provide a moral framework for what it means to be a good person. They focus on the intentions of a person and how those intentions make all the difference in whether a person is acting morally or not. Since morality serves as the foundation for ethics, according to these philosophers, it stands to reason that ethical behavior is that which is intended to fulfill a moral purpose. Thus, in answer to the question, "What does it mean to be an ethical person?" this paper will show that a system of virtue ethics is the best response: honesty, integrity and compassion are the signs of an ethical person, and such a person will exhibit and display these qualities.

Both Kant and Aristotle take into consideration the intention of one's actions when they discuss the morality of behavior. For Aristotle, there is an intellectual virtue and a moral virtue.[footnoteRef:1] In the Nichomachean Ethics, for instance, Aristotle shows that some virtues we learn through habit and action (these are the moral virtues) and some we learn through instruction (these are the intellectual virtues). Both are formative and have an impact on how or why individuals behave a certain way. Virtue itself is an exercise and not so much a law (i.e., a universal law as might be found in deontology like that promoted by Kant). Kant argues for the existence of a universal maxim, a universal ethic that should guide behavior.[footnoteRef:2] This argument is the deontological side of the question, answering that what it means to be an ethical person is best answered by whether or not a person conforms his or her behavior to the universal ethical law. All that is needed is to know what the universal ethic is. For Aristotle, the idea of what it means to be an ethical person is approached much differently. It is approached by way of what one thinks and how one acts, which the measurement being the virtuous ideal itself -- that is, the nature of conformity of action to purpose. When action is oriented to purpose, ethical behavior is achieved. For Kant, ethical behavior is achieved when action is oriented to duty. The difference between the two is that one focuses on man's purpose and the other on man's duty. [1: Steven M. Cahn, Peter Markie. Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues (5th Edition). (UK: Oxford University Press, 2011), 529.] [2: Steven M. Cahn, Peter Markie. Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues (5th Edition). (UK: Oxford University Press, 2011), 530.]

Either can be useful in discovering what it is that helps us to be our best selves. Simply engaging in the act of asking questions about what it means to be honest and ethical is a first step towards finding an answer. A question that is never asked can never be answered, after all. However, if one wants to characterize ethical behavior, then Aristotle's conception is the best because he puts forward the idea that ethical behavior is found in the character of an individual, manifested in thought, word and action. Kant maintains that ethics is deontological -- that a study of the rules and an adherence to them is the gist of what constitutes ethics.

The ethical theories of the two share similarities: both are interested in what an individual's intentions are rather than in what one does. For Aristotle, the intentions are molded by intellectual activity, which goes on to influence one's habits -- and these efforts are judged from the standpoint of virtue (the ideal). For Kant, the intentions are judged from the standpoint of duty and whether one intends to conform to the universal ethic.

The concept of a universal law or ethic and an ideal of virtue are also similar in a sense. The former is simply a law that applies to all men and women and to which all should conform in intention. The latter could be defined as the same, for what is an ideal if not a universal to which one should conform in intention? It could be argued that the ideal places no duty upon one, but if one is aiming to be ethical or if one's nature itself is programmed towards fulfilling one's purpose then it could be said the ideal places a duty upon how one behaves. That is why this question of purpose is important to Aristotle. A thing that fulfills its purpose is a thing that acts appropriately. The purpose of man is thus a major question for Aristotle, who holds that man's purpose is to be happy.

How does one become happy? The answer is through virtuous behavior. Virtue is the ideal that calls man to his true end. Virtue is obtained through the formation of the character (through thought and habit) and the qualities that it produces are qualities like honesty, integrity and compassion. There may be others that are identified as well, but these three represent an approximation of virtuousness that should suffice for a proper understanding of what it means.

Honesty means truthfulness. Truth means conformity of the mind to reality. If one is honest, one will not lie to others about what he or she is doing or has done; he will not lie to himself about what he sees. He will tell the truth: his mind will match the reality of what he sees and understands. It is a simple equation.

Integrity means wholeness. A person who has integrity is one is not fractured or broken apart or pieced together with fragments. A person who strives for integrity is one who wants to be complete and if he or she sees that he is missing something, perhaps in the way of character formation, then he or she will do whatever is possible to complete the formation and fill the gaps. This is what integrity means.

Compassion means sympathizing and empathizing with others. It means putting oneself in others' shoes. It means feeling what others feel, whether that is joy or sorrow and taking part in that feeling with them. It is a part of the social nature of people because it enables people to bond. If there is no compassion in the world, then there is no reason for people to be together at all.

Each of these qualities is an aspect of character, which is where ethical behavior is situated according to Aristotle. Kant views it as being related to the extent that one conforms with one's duty. The problem with this perspective is that it depends upon one's sense of duty with regard to a universal rule or application. In other words, one might ask if there is an instance or a case in which it is okay to not be honest or if there is an instance wherein it is okay to not have integrity or if there is an occasion in which compassion is simply not warranted. This latter point may have very real and practical consequences in our own time -- for instance as the country struggles to deal with rising rates of homelessness, or drug crimes, or division. To what extent should one exercise compassion in this case? Is there a universal standard? Kant would ask these questions and in a sense become a kind of Hamlet-type, forever seeking to gauge whether or not a certain action is appropriate. The issue is that the action whereby purpose is achieved is divorced from that actor and attached to a supposed universal dictum. Instead of looking inward to see whether or not I am acting honestly, with integrity or with compassion, I am looking outward at a situation and attempting to assess what duty is implied by it or what the universal law should be. With Aristotle's method, the examination is easier and simpler: the question of whether I am acting ethically is answered by asking whether or not I am acting in conformity with the principle of honesty, with the concept of integrity, with compassion. The ideal becomes the benchmark instead of a perceived universal law to which one is bound by duty.

For Aristotle the ideal is very much real and could be said to be the universal. The concept of universals -- of the one, the true, the good, the beautiful -- is essentially what leads the philosopher on to recognizing one's purpose. If one's purpose is to be happy, then one has an ethical responsibility to be happy. How does one become happy? One fulfills one's purpose. How does one fulfill one's purpose? One must cultivate one's character so that it may act rightly.

Right action is the main thrust of Aristotle's conception of what it means to be an ethical person. Acting rightly depends upon forming one's character through the mind and through habitual activity. Is this the case with Kant? For Kant, the case of what it means to be an ethical person is caught up on identifying one's duty. This question is essentially already solved by Aristotle when he identifies man's purpose. The identification that Aristotle makes may be taken in a universal sense: it is man's purpose to be happy everywhere (thus there is a quality of universality here). Kant, however, appears to consider that there is a distinct duty that must be identified in every unique and individual instance. Instead of commencing from the point of how one achieves happiness, Kant commences from a deontological point by attempting to discern a duty that is distinct from the purpose already identified by Aristotle.