In Aristotelian ethics, the end game for an individual is to achieve eudaimonia, the highest form of morality in which one has achieved true happiness, fully actualizing one's potential and living a virtuous life. n I found the concept of eudaimonia interesting and noticed that many moral theories focused on happiness as a measure of morality, while Kantianism did not, so I wanted to take a deeper look at the fundamental differences between the two theories and determine whether there was a theoretical superior. In my article I seek to see if there is a Kantian equivalent of eudaimonia, or a desired end result for Kantianism and in the process compare and contrast the two theories to determine which offers a more realistic solution to the question of what defines virtue. Aristotle and Kant have profoundly different ethical views, particularly on what exactly defines virtue. Immediately I noticed a profound difference between the somewhat more modern vision of ethics provided by Kant compared to the perhaps somewhat antiquated visions of Aristotle. In the Nicomean Ethics, Aristotle asks what exactly the good is. Aristotle cites some typical examples such as being happy, healthy and respected among one's peers. He believes that "men's conception of goodness and happiness can be read in the life they lead". (Vaughn 84) Aristotle's reasoning continues to get to the origin of every good activity. He observed that if a man continued to ask himself what actions are good, he would discover that every good activity leads to an end result of joy. For this reason man can increase his joy by drawing examples from his own life. For example, if a man is ill, he desires good well-being, because it is what he accepts as true... middle of paper... the good of an activity counts. If the activity could be unanimously applied to all men, then the activity would clearly be considered good. I think Kant would compare hypothetical and categorical imperatives to Aristotle's theory that performing virtuous acts continually leads to the greatest good, eudaimonia. Kant's ethical idea of ​​the good creates a coherent reference point in which all beings achieve goodness in the same way as the Aristotelian notion of the good. good, where one can only be considered good after years of living virtuous in myriad ways, Kant believed that only by using good will for entire categorical duties does one make a man good. To conclude, the philosophies of these two men are completely different as far as Aristotle viewed the good as a fluid concept and Kant believed it to be immutable with no true end goal or eudaimonia beyond satisfying imperatives.