Aristotle's versus Kant's Categories of the Temperate, the Continent, the Incontinent, the Vicious and the Bestial

Describe Aristotle's temperate, continental, incontinent, malignant and animal categories. Compare the ratings of these people in Aristotle and Kant. Which of these people is morally good and which is bad. As stated in "Nichomachean Ethics", Aristotle's psychological type is a classification of different unique moral qualities. These categories are comprehensive attempts in ancient philosophy to identify which internal psychology shows benign or morally bad behavior.

Aristotle's four famous names (goodness, mainland, incontinence and side effects) in Nicole Marco ethics reflect all aspects of this deeper definition. 9 Among those who are disgusted, reason and appetite it is unified and reason is slaves of passion and desire. This tired person chooses his or her appetite command. In incontinence, reasons and appetite are not unified, and appetite is often better than victory. I understand the right thing correctly, I feel like wanting to do it, it becomes a moral person, but if I fail one or more people, my appetite will be overwhelmed. Between continents, reasons and appetite are not unified, but the reason is better than appetite rather than appetite. Desires are there; and the right thing will be done more often. In a kind person, the reason and the appetite are unified, the appetite is controlled by reason, so the right thing is done (in most cases)

According to Aristotle, Mr. Habani said that there are four characteristics of kindness, mainland, incontinence, malignant personality. In order to do the right thing, the mainland must resist his desire. Incontinence can succumb to his desire and can not act properly and I know that what he did is wrong. A malignant person does not need to resist the desire of one's own desire or the weakness of one's will. He wants to morally make the wrong decision. A good character has character characteristics that forces us to have a practical advantage, to act in the right way, to react emotionally in the right way, and to have a sharp ability to stand up against the situation. A kind person knows what is very polite when doing good things and will do good intentions because you want to do the right thing. Aristotle insists that a gentle person can not be silly but rustic, but I disagree. Homer lacks integrity

In short, cant is a member of the excellent people who enjoy the limitations of Aristotle's happiness, the continent without such a limit, and those suffering from such limitations? According to the evidence, his gentle person is closer to the mainland than good people. The conclusion to be derived from this is that the general definition of moral habits as Aristotle's moral habits solves moral problems of ignorance and weakness so it is more effective than Kant's definition of revisionism is. My argument can be further extended. (2)