I got to thinking about how a Utilitarian might term or define what people call 'morals'.

It is something that a person sets as a boundary point in there actions as a guiding rule of how they do not act in response to stimuli from their environment.  So if your in the mafia it is not moral to respond peacefully if your friend gets killed.  If you are a Christian you follow the morals dictated in the Bible as how to not respond to those who would wrong you and how to not cause harm to others.

Essentially morals seem to be a group of self-set rules, unique to each individual, that dictate certain limits in how you respond to events in the world around you.

Thoughts?

When watching the movie it got me to thinking about how in some of Lincoln's the Morally right thing to for Lincoln, from the perspective of Kant, was to do his duty as a lawyer regardless of the whether or not he defended an innocent man or a guilty man.  However, as was demonstrated during the movie, only by being a person who had a well rounded and deeper experience of life that Aristotle considers necessary to be a person well suited for the study of law and political science.

The case of using the Almanac to discover that a portion of the witnesses testimony was completely false.

So would this imply that in order to be a morally correct person in ones actions by Kants standards, you might also need to be a moral person by the standards of Aristotle?