Kant has a clean and sharp view. Happiness floats in the background of life; it is something that to him is nice to have but does not define what is right. What matters to Kant is the intention behind our actions, and if we choose to do something because it makes us happy, Kant believes that it loses moral worth. The real worth comes from doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do, set by universal principles. Kant pushes us to choose principle even when the other choice would bring comfort. There is dignity in this choice, and even when all else is uncertain, that dignity remains when we know we chose the right thing to do.
Aristotle has a seemingly warmer view. His idea of happiness is not exactly a burst of joy and light, but growth. To Aristotle, happiness grows through the small habits, actions, and choices that build our character. By practicing things like patience, courage, and kindness, we shape a life that feels full and whole. Virtue is not separate from happiness; it is the way toward it. To Aristotle, being a good person and living to one’ s full potential is what brings one to happiness, to eudaimonia.
When looking at Kant and Aristotle together, there is both a contrast and a harmony between their ideas. Kant believes we should follow duty even when it costs us happiness. His focus on duty does not change based on mood or circumstance, and he is not concerned with happiness. Aristotle focuses on growth and believes that taking a moral and virtuous path is what will bring us to happiness, which is the end goal, and will be reached at our full potential. One asks us to choose the moral path even when it costs us happiness, while the other asks us to grow into someone with meaning through that moral path.
38 | Travesía • revista estudiantil