Analysis Of Kant's Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morality

Morality is term that allows people to differentiate between intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are either good or right versus those that are bad or wrong. This may seem like a simple task to distinguish in todays society, however philosophy has took a much more intricate account of what morality is. Philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, and philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in his Leviathan, both have very different understandings on the basis of morality and the determination of what is “good”, “evil”, “right” or “wrong”. Kant believes that purely rational principles alone provide the basis for morality, whereas Hobbes establishes that human beings are self-interested entities driven by desire/aversion.
The difference between each philosopher is clear; however the points that seek to identify the differences of the foundations of morality will be thoroughly discussed. This paper will further explore the essential differences between Kant and Hobbes in terms of reason, understanding of basic human nature, as well as understanding the basis of morality.

Kant argues that one can develop a principle for moral action entirely through rationality. His theory amongst this view comes from the categorical imperative.
He states:
“There is one imperative which immediately commands a certain conduct without having as its condition any other purpose to be attained by it. This imperative is categorical. It is not concerned with the matter of the action and its intended result, but rather with the form of the action and the principle from which is follows; what is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may. This imperative may be called that of morality” (Kant, p. 26, 416).
Categorical imperatives are unconditional.
They command you to do X, whether or not you have the desire to do X. We must act in such a way that allows us to treat humanity as an end and never merely as a means. From this exposition, Kant argues that morality should not be something that differs from individual to individual; because we are rational human beings, we ought to give reasons for what we do, and we can act based on those reasons rather than acting simply because we want to. We should act, regardless of our own purposes, only on maxims (general ways of acting). For example, every human being should have the intention to act the same way another human being would in a moral dilemma. Thus, being rational means being able to act based on reasons that are universally defensible and acting on the basis of a “good will”. A “good will” is morally the most important aspect of an action. Only a “good will” can be good without qualification. The consequences of an action are of secondary of importance. Ultimately, there are three central propositions in Kant’s understanding of morality: (1) an action is only morally good if it is done from duty, (2) the goodness of an action is found in the intention, (3) because the law is universal, duty must follow from it. Any violation among these three propositions is considered immoral. Kant believes that the only way to accurate judgment concerning morality was a priori by means of pure practical
reason.

According to Hobbes, morality comes from the laws of nature. He believes that human beings are essentially self-interested agents. Therefore, the only relevant reason to be moral is that morality serves each individual’s interests. Let us first examine how Hobbes resulted in this view. Before civilization, human beings were very much so involved in war, hatred and violence. Hobbes offers a compelling basis for this account. “When taking a journey, he arms himself, and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors; when even in his house he locks his chests” (Hobbes, p. 84). The fact that even in such atmospheres today, we as individuals are still obliged to lock our doors, arm ourselves etc. from suspicious activity. This is indicative reality for Hobbes – that even if one does not have the desire to steal, rob, murder, violate etc. we cannot expect the same from every other human being, like Kant suggests. It is on this basis, that morality does not exist before making of the social contract. A social contract ensures to attain peace. People should make a contract with each other and give up their natural right to everything. In the agreement in which we stop war, we also create the laws of morality that forbid violence. Therefore, the fundamental argument in Hobbes is that morality is ultimately grounded by subjective interests and human beings are essentially self-interested and driven by desire/aversion. Moreover,