I am currently working on a paper comparing and contrasting Aristotle's and Kant's account of virtue. My paper specifically looks at Kant's "Doctrine of Virtue" in The Metaphysics of Morals and Book II of Nicomachean Ethics.

While many people argue and have argued that the two accounts of virtue are totally incompatible. Virtuous action for Aristotle is an a posteriori choice that takes place after deliberation. The virtuous follow the intermediary state between two bad states--excess and deficiency. Kant on the other hand thinks that virtuous action is based on an a priori idea of moral perfection. According to Kant, all individuals have an intrinsic worth (dignity), and everyone has a right to this dignity, thus, everyone also has an obligation to the rights of others. For Kant the will is free, but we are morally obligated to this law by duty.

The question is, are these two ideas (rough sketches anyway) conceptually different, or are they different through term definitions and language? The way I see it, Kant's agent that ought to do certain things is the same agent that Aristotle says follows the doctrine of the mean. I see Kant's a priori principles a necessary component of the Aristotle's virtous individual.

Any thoughts?