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 people don’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 consequences 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 enough 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 because it is not backed by
consequential actions.