Philippa Foot claims that a person who has a good disposition is slightly better than a person who has to control himself or herself. Kant would say the opposite. Explain these viewpoints, and take sides. Which do you agree with and why?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Philippa Foot, a virtue ethicist, argues that a person with a good disposition, or natural inclination towards moral behavior, is slightly better than someone who has to constantly control themselves to act morally. This is because a person with a good disposition acts morally effortlessly and genuinely, while someone who has to constantly control themselves may not be acting in line with their true character.

On the other hand, Immanuel Kant, a deontologist, would argue that a person who has to constantly control themselves and act in accordance with moral principles is superior. Kant believes that moral actions should be performed out of a sense of duty and rationality, rather than natural inclination or desire. Therefore, someone who has to control themselves to act morally is demonstrating a higher level of moral commitment and rationality.

In this debate, I would personally agree with Philippa Foot's viewpoint. I believe that a person with a good disposition is slightly better than someone who has to constantly control themselves. This is because I value authenticity and genuine moral behavior. A person with a good disposition is more likely to act morally consistently and sincerely, while someone who has to constantly control themselves may be more prone to moral fatigue or insincerity. Additionally, I believe that natural inclinations towards moral behavior should be celebrated and cultivated, rather than devalued in favor of strict self-control.

Philippa Foot Claims That a Person Who Has a Good