Mill, Kant, and Aristotle on Ethical Behavior Compared
This paper examines three major ethical frameworks — Kant's deontological universalism, Mill's utilitarianism, and Aristotle's virtue ethics — and assesses their strengths and limitations through close philosophical reading and literary illustration. Drawing on James Rachels's summaries of Kant and Mill alongside Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, the paper shows how each thinker defines the relationship between reason, happiness, and moral duty. D'Arcy McNickle's novel Surrounded is used to critique the dangers of rigid moral absolutism when wielded by dominant cultures, while George Eliot's Middlemarch complicates Mill's happiness-centered ethics by revealing how happiness can be pursued in morally vacuous ways. The paper concludes that balance and pragmatism, grounded in rational ethical judgment, are essential to any viable moral framework.
- Introduction: The Problem of Defining Morality: Morality is contested; philosophers offer competing frameworks
- Kant's Universal Law and Moral Duty: Kant grounds morality in rationality, dignity, and absolute duty
- Mill's Utilitarianism and the Greatest Happiness Principle: Mill defines morality through collective happiness and pragmatism
- Literary Critique: Hegemony, Morality, and McNickle's Surrounded: McNickle exposes dangers of rigid moral absolutism in colonialism
- Happiness Without Ethics: George Eliot's Middlemarch: Eliot's Rosamond shows happiness pursued without moral grounding
- Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and Rational Action: Aristotle links moral goodness to reason-guided virtuous action
- Conclusion: Balance, Pragmatism, and Ethical Behavior: Viable ethics requires rational balance between duty and happiness
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It integrates philosophical theory with literary evidence, using McNickle's Surrounded and Eliot's Middlemarch as concrete case studies to test and critique abstract ethical claims.
- The comparison is dialectical rather than merely descriptive — each philosopher's framework is placed in productive tension with the others, allowing strengths and weaknesses to emerge through contrast.
- The paper grounds its critique of Kant in a historically specific example (the treatment of Native Americans), giving the abstract philosophical argument real social weight.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of philosophical synthesis: it moves from exposition of individual thinkers to a triangulated argument about what a viable moral theory must include. By the conclusion, no single philosopher's framework is endorsed wholesale; instead, the student draws on all three to articulate a nuanced position about the necessity of rational, pragmatic ethical balance.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing of the difficulty of defining morality, then proceeds systematically through Kant, Mill, and Aristotle. Literary texts are introduced mid-argument to stress-test each framework rather than being reserved for a separate section. The conclusion synthesizes the three philosophical positions and the two literary examples into a single, unified claim about ethical balance and rationality.
Introduction: The Problem of Defining Morality
Morality is a difficult concept to pin down. It appears to us as a concrete term underscored by certain rational assumptions about the universe, yet that which one person considers a vice may, to another, be seen as no such thing. The reverse may also apply: where one sees himself as acting virtuously, others might perceive an ulterior motive. It is therefore rather difficult to identify what truly defines our cause for moral behavior, though all major figures in the history of philosophy have ventured a framework. Considering the ideas of philosophers such as Kant, Mill, and Aristotle, and in light of ideas expressed by authors D'Arcy McNickle and George Eliot, we can see that ethical morality is a concept vulnerable to a high degree of ideological disagreement.
The eighteenth century in particular witnessed a flurry of activity, with the latter generation of the Enlightenment Era providing a spirited exchange — across decades of literature — on what constitutes moral behavior. In our investigation of the notion of Universal Law as one possible lens through which to understand morality, consideration of German philosopher Immanuel Kant's 1785 Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals provides an endorsement that is rather strict in its prescription of proper ethical behavior. His perspective was derived in no small part from his religious piety, and there is, at the very least, a consistency between his moral foundation and the Judeo-Christian ethic that forms the base of Western society.
Works Cited
Eliot, G. (1872). Middlemarch. Penguin Classics.
McNickle, D. (1936). Surrounded. University of New Mexico Press.
Rachels, James. (1993). The Utilitarian Approach. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, pp. 91–101. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rachels, James. (1993). Kant and Respect for Persons. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, pp. 127–138. New York: McGraw Hill.
Thunder, David. (1996). Friendship in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: An Essential Component of the Good Life. The Philosophy Site. Online at http://www.nd.edu/~dthunder/Articles/Article4.html
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
7-Day Pass
Does not renew
Get 7-Day PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 3 during the 7-Day Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.