1. Aristotle and Kant's view on Ethics and happiness.

Aristotle's view on ethics and happiness is that

leading a happy life is ethical, virtuous and morally fulfilling. According to Aristotle, it is ethical to pursue
actions that lead to happiness. Like utilitarians or consequentialists, it is the consequences of an action
that make it ethical. Making ethical decisions and actions that bring unhappiness or suffering renders
such an outcome unethical and morally unfulfilling. By contrast, Kant's view on ethics and happiness is
that peopledon't deserve happiness and that actions we pursue in life are remotely connected to
happiness but to goodwill. To Kant ethical life is burdensome and is not worthy of pursuing. To him,
people simply strive to live for and by goodwill. What makes people happy is the ability to pursue what
is right or lawful. Unlike, Aristotle, Kant is not concerned about the benefits or consequences of an
action but is of the idea that a mere desire to do what is right is good enough even if the person does
not go ahead to do the right thing.

2. Why I agree more with Aristotle on this point. I agree more with Aristotle on this point because
beneficial effects of one's actions are fulfilling and virtuous. People really desire to cause life to be
enjoyable for themselves and others and when we really cause positive consequences on life, we derive
fulfillment and happiness. I find it hard to side with Kant because it is ineffectual to just have a desire to
act in goodwill and then fail to be good in real terms. It is virtuous to act outside the confines of the law
and then cause good. That is why I find Aristotle's ideas more acceptable than Kant's.

3. An example/examples to support my view. Here is an example to support my view in favor of

Aristotle. Someone living an ethical life would be happy to pursue and fulfill a work environment that
they're passionate about. A nursing sister who engages in a strike action to force the employer to
provide adequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) might be deemed to be acting outside the
dictates of both ethical morality and goodwill. However, in Aristotlan terms, the nurse's passion to serve
is not good enough if the job endangers both herself and the patients. So strike action is within the limits
of what might make her job more enjoyable and fulfilling. If the employer concedes to the demands, the
nurse's strike action would have caused the greatest good to the hospital, herself, her family and all the
patients in the hospital. The consequence of her actions are both ethical and virtuous as well as capable
of producing happiness for herself and others. This is the kind of life worth pursuing. This defeats the
Kantian view of acting just out of goodwill. In this case, goodwill would just have made the nurse to
continue providing a service even when the conditions are a danger to her, the patients, her family and
society as a whole. The desire to do good alone endangers her health and that of patients. Moreover,
goodwill on its own is not good because it would not bring PPEs to the hospital. In short, pursuing
happiness in the case of the nurse has brought the greatest good in the health care institution. Goodwill
alone would destroy lives.