Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
How did Ferguson argue that Aristotle’s moral account was superior to Immanuel Kant’s? Many people assume that a commercial society is utilitarian, but Ferguson argued that utilitarianism is a failed ethic. Why?
Sample Answer
Ferguson’s Critique of Kant and Utilitarianism: A Perspective on the Moral Infrastructure of a Commercial Society
Adam Ferguson, a Scottish philosopher and a key figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, presented a compelling argument regarding the moral foundations of a commercial society, contrasting Aristotle’s moral account with Immanuel Kant’s philosophy and critiquing utilitarianism. Ferguson believed that Aristotle’s moral account offered a superior framework for understanding the complexities of human behavior and societal ethics compared to Kant’s deontological approach. Additionally, Ferguson contended that utilitarianism, often associated with commercial societies, was a flawed ethic that failed to address the inherent complexities of human morality and social interactions.
Aristotle vs. Kant: Ferguson’s Perspective
Ferguson valued Aristotle’s virtue ethics over Kant’s deontological ethics. Aristotle’s virtue ethics focused on cultivating moral character and developing virtuous habits to achieve eudaimonia, or human flourishing. According to Ferguson, Aristotle’s emphasis on practical wisdom, moderation, and the cultivation of virtues such as courage, temperance, and justice provided a more holistic and nuanced approach to moral decision-making in a commercial society.
In contrast, Kant’s deontological ethics centered around the categorical imperative and the concept of duty. While Kant’s emphasis on universal moral principles and rational autonomy was commendable, Ferguson believed that Kant’s rigid adherence to duty-based ethics could overlook the complexities of individual circumstances and moral dilemmas that arise in a diverse and dynamic society.
Utilitarianism: Ferguson’s Critique
While utilitarianism is often associated with the efficiency and utility-maximizing ethos of commercial societies, Ferguson argued that utilitarianism was a flawed ethic that failed to capture the richness and depth of human morality. Utilitarianism, championed by thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness or utility.
Ferguson critiqued utilitarianism for reducing moral decision-making to a simple calculus of pleasure and pain, overlooking the importance of virtues, character development, and intrinsic values that are essential for a flourishing society. By prioritizing aggregate outcomes over individual rights and moral principles, utilitarianism could lead to unjust outcomes and undermine the moral fabric of a community.
In conclusion, Ferguson’s critique of Kant’s deontological ethics and utilitarianism sheds light on the complexities of moral reasoning in a commercial society. By advocating for Aristotle’s virtue ethics and highlighting the limitations of utilitarianism, Ferguson emphasized the importance of cultivating virtues, promoting human flourishing, and recognizing the inherent moral complexities that shape our interactions and ethical decisions in a diverse and dynamic society.
