Miller, Kant, and Aristotle on fostering relationship between Great grandpa and his grandson Essay

Making moral decisions can be difficult sometimes and it is not easy to reach a certain conclusion. Philosophical decisions are much more complex and take time to evlaute decisions in life. Rather, the reasoning behind a moral decision is much more intricate, requiring a medley of sources to arrive at a decision. Take, for example, a situation in which a father has to decide whether or not to foster a relationship between his three year old son and his son’s dying great grandfather. Is the son having a relationship with his great grandfather worth risking the pain his son would have to endure due to his great grandfather’s death? Or, would the pain be too scarring and ruin the life of such a young mind? To help resolve his dilemma, the father might turn to the philosophical giants: Mill, Kant, and Aristotle. Mill would agree to foster the relationship. However, to arrive at this decision, certain assumptions were made. Mill would advise to foster the relationship if the great grandfather would live a couple more years. Mill’s basis for moral decision making rests on whether the sum of all pleasures outweighs the sum of all pains. Thus, in order for Mill to agree to foster the relationship, it must be stated that the relationship between the great grandfather and the son is a good healthy relationship and that the death does not cause any permanent or enduring psychological damage on neither the son, nor the father, nor the great grandfather. After all, Mill’s theory demands that one take into account the sum of all the pleasures and all the pains. Also, the son might also gain the power to deal with death with this relationship. Mill would then consider good results from this relationship. Therefore, if everyone receives more pleasure from the relationship between the great grandfather and the son than pain (even after death) then Mill would advise to foster the relationship. Kant, on the other hand, discards the notion of consequences. Kant’s advice in this situation is harder to decipher because his theory is based on internalization and motivation. Kant would agree to foster the relationship if the father’s motivation for the relationship is purely the relationship in itself. In other words, it requires that the father be treating the great grandfather as an end rather than as a means. If the father wants to foster the relationship merely because he feels it might result in a larger endowment for his son, then Kant would no longer advice fostering the relationship. Furthermore, Kant might support fostering a relationship if the father’s decision to not foster a relationship was to avoid the pain of death. The inverse is also true. Kant might advice asking the great grandfather (not the three year old son, for he is too young to reason) whether he would like a relationship with his great grandson. Then, the father would be treating him as an end, not as a means. It is also important to take into consideration whether it is a father’s duty to foster a relationship between a great grandfather and his son. Kant’s advice only holds assuming that both the great grandfather and son are generally good and the relationship that would form between them is also good. In summation, Kant’s theory bases itself on internal motivation. As he himself stated, oftentimes, the layers are too difficult to peel to arrive at the true motivation. Aristotle would advise fostering some relationship with the father (this would be the virtuous mean). Aristotle would argue that not fostering a relationship and fostering too much of a relationship would be two extremes. Aristotle advises that one must find a mean in between the two extremes and that is the right relationship. Moreover, Aristotle believes that morality can be learned through observation. Therefore, a three year old child would have much to gain from the experience of an 84 year-old great grandfather. This relationship might help the son reach his human purpose, or excellence. Once again, Aristotle would only advise any relationship if the relationship is good and both the great grandfather and the son enjoy it. Perhaps a better approach to arriving at a decision requires a combination of both Kant’s and Aristotle’s philosophy. The decision continues to run on the assumption, of course, that both the great grandfather and the son are good people and that a good and healthy relationship would thus form. The decision to foster a relationship must first be decided based on the motivation. In other words, a relationship should only be fostered if the father wants a relationship only because of the relationship and not as a means of achieving a greater good. However, fostering too much of a relationship might force unnecessary pains. Thus, a mean of some relationship should be followed. For example, a relationship of one hour on the weekends might be beneficial. For, once a relationship would form, it would not be strong enough to completely devastate any party involved.