The largest successes and failures always start with a simple principle. I am referring to Aristotle’s principle of causality. If you understand it and adhere to it, you should do well in life. If you ignore its existence or fail to obey it, it will wipe you out.
After Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) had rediscovered every key principle of Aristotelian philosophy, one might expect later generations to observe those principles, right?
Actually not. History is not linear. It often happens that key ideas are forgotten for decades or centuries. Individuals will let go of reason and embrace superstition under social pressure or due to outright stupidity. The truth can be long forgotten before it is again brought to light.
Aristotle’s two major opponents are Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Their attacks against Aristotle’s causality principle made human flourishing, thriving and success impossible.
By attacking the root principle, Kant and Hegel prevented a large part of their contemporaries from developing their skills and talents. Kant and Hegel’s philosophical errors prevented people from pursuing self-actualization and happiness.
Immanuel Kant is generally regarded as a pivotal figure of Enlightenment philosophy, but in reality, his ideas undermine a good part of the Aristotelian principles that enable civilization.
Aristotle had outlined clear steps for achieving eudaimonia, starting with the identification of goals, the cultivation of skills and virtue, and the application of one’s energies to productive work.
The practice of Aristotelian virtues leads to tangible benefits such as success, wealth, friendship and health. The principle of causality plays in your favour if you obey it. It helps you if you help yourself.
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing versus the categorical imperative
Kant outlined an ethical system that is the direct opposite of Aristotelian philosophy. Instead of practising virtues that bring flourishing and success, Kant argued that ethics should consist of abstract commands or duties that are imposed on everybody.
The crucial book for understanding Kantian ethics is titled “Groundwork of Moral Metaphysics.” It was first published in 1785, and promoted the concepts of moral duty and categorical imperative.
Kant defined the moral worth of human actions by reference to universal commands or categorical imperatives. Those must fulfil the standard of being applicable to everybody. Kant was speaking of commands such as “do not kill” or “do not steal.”
A categorical imperative is absolute. It demands all persons to obey out of sense of duty. According to Kant, every person shall obey even if those universal commands contradict one’s interests or desires.
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing versus Kantian ethics
Human flourishing, according to Kant, rests on compliance with the categorical imperatives; those need to be identified by each person by employing reason.
Strangely enough, Kant used the term “moral autonomy” to refer to the compliance with categorical imperatives. How is it “moral” or “autonomous” if it is mandatory? If virtue is linked to compliance, then is virtue not applicable in areas of human life where there are no categorical imperatives?
As you can see, Kant broke Aristotle’s connections between virtue, flourishing, success, and happiness. You can use ethics, in the Aristotelian sense, to improve your life in every sense. In contrast, Kantian ethics demand you to obey and suffer for no good reason.
Kant argued that compliance with categorical imperatives is good because it gives individuals “a sense of moral fulfilment” because they are contributing to a harmonious society.
It is not hard to see the enormous distance separating Kant’s “sense of moral fulfilment” from Aristotle’s concept of human flourishing and success.
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing is superior to Kant’s
Kantian ethics are worthless for everyday life. A categorical imperative tells people to stay away from murder and theft, but fails to help them make crucial decisions. How will choose the right profession? How will choose your spouse?
What is even worse, Kant’s morality discourages individuals from taking initiative; it doesn’t view ambition, productiveness, and determination as virtues.
By placing too much weight on obedience, Kant forgot the main purpose of ethics. Aristotle was adamant that philosophy in general, and ethics in particular, have the goal of achieving happiness; by promoting compliance, Kant got completely lost.
If you are interested in how to apply Aristotelian principles in daily life, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s pursuit of knowledge and truth
Key ideas in Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality
Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality
Key ideas in Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success