Happiness serves as the center for understanding morality. The pain and pleasures of life are what determine the happiness of an individual. For Kant, happiness does not provide any moral motivation to an individual. Kant believed more in the hypothetical imperative; therefore he says that an action, good or bad, which contributes to the happiness of the individual is only good for some purposes (Kant 397). These are actual or possible actions. Therefore, Kant and Aristotle have different views of happiness and describe it in different ways as it derives from their theories. Both disagree on the moral importance of happiness as they tend to view happiness as caused only by individual moral actions. This is because happiness is determined by whether someone feels pain or feels pleasure. Since morality is the virtue that a person possesses and that gives him his dignity, this is why the disagreement about happiness comes into play in their theories. My position on this topic is that I also disagree about the moral importance of happiness. Pleasure causes the happiness that individuals face in their lives. Thus, individual morality is never determined by their happiness. I think it's usually the other way around. Personal morality is what determines an individual's happiness. The virtue of character or the virtue of thought that one learns over the course of one's life is what also determines happiness. Therefore, happiness according to different individuals has different meanings. This is why it cannot be considered as wealth or education similar to