Preview

Hume Versus Kant

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1500 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Hume Versus Kant
Hume and Kant offered two differing views on morality. Hume's philosophy regarding moral theory came from the belief that reason alone can never cause action. Desire or thoughts cause action. Because reason alone can never cause action, morality is rooted in us and our perception of the world and what we want to gain from it. Virtue arises from acting on a desire to help others. Hume's moral theory is therefore a virtue-centered morality rather than the natural-law morality, which saw morality as coming from God. Kant's notion of morality stems from his notion of one universal moral law. This law is pertinent to all people and can be used at all times before carrying our actions According to Kant, you ought to act according to the maxim that is qualified for universal law giving; that is, you ought to act so that the maxim of your action may become a universal law. While Hume and Kant's moral theory differ dramatically, they share one quality and that is the fact that neither centers around the concept of God and his will.
Hume's theories may be considered by some not really philosophical theories at all. It is to say that he is not searching for that philosophical life that is seen in a Plato, or Augustine. He believes that capitalism promotes prosperity for people, and that only science and math is the realm for reason. To discuss Hume's ethical theory you have to look at the central theme, which are feelings. Hume's ethical theory says that moral judgments are made on feelings as oppose to reason. Hume's feelings are based upon the belief that people make moral judgments because it is useful to society. He uses the examples of benevolence and justice to support this idea. Benevolence leads to happiness in society, which is the main basis for moral approval. Justice, for Hume, is regarded as good because again it is useful to society. He says that justice would not exist if everybody was not selfish, and one of its main uses is to protect private property.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Even though he had classified justice as one of the artifial virtues, he later identifies it, along with benevolence, as a social virtue. He argues that although benevolence is necessary for self-enjoyment, it cannot be reduced entirely to self-interest as the Hobbesians think but tends rather to promote social welfare. While benevolence is an original principle in human nature, justice is not. The need for rules of justice is not universal. It arises only under conditions of relative scarcity, where property has to be regulated to preserve order in society. For Hume the language of morality implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object for general approval. It also implies some universal and comprehensive…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant, worked on ethics and wrote two general schools of thoughts. The first theory is consequentialist moral theories, which divides the thought of right and wrong based on the outcome and it consequence of an action, therefore the end justifies the means.The second theory is deontology which is similar to consequentialist but instead right and wrong based upon oneself. Thus categorical imperative was introduced, categorical imperative is based upon kant's idea that morality is derived by rationality and all moral judgement are rationally supported, in other words what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. In more detail into categorical Imperative, there are three maxim, first maxim is all your actions must have universality. therefore for if you want to do something it must be okay for everyone else to do it, as Kant uses suicide as an example he says “is it contrary to my duty to take my life if i am in despair due to my many misfortunes? First, i should ask what if all though this way and acted upon it and became a law of nature” Second Maxim is every human should be treated as a end and not a mean, which means you’re not obligated nor allowed to manipulate someone no matter what. Third maxim one should act like you're the moral authority of the entire universe. As we compare this to Friedrich Nietzsche’s thoughts on morality we notice difference. immanuel Kant in…

    • 683 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Before I go about pitting these two systems against each other, however, it would be best to first give you a (hopefully) sufficient understanding of what composes each respective ethical theory, so that you can better follow the comparison ant critique of the theories later on. First, let us take a look at Kant's system of ethics, which is based on the notion of duty. For Kant, this duty was something that had to be motivated from something that was larger than yourself and your emotion; it had to be drawn from an objective place, and with the right intentions in mind. Have you ever heard the adage that goes “doing the right thing for the wrong reason”? That would apply perfectly to Kant's theory. The result's of one's actions mean nothing if the intentions are selfish in nature. To Kant, intention was perhaps even more important than the results of your actions, due to the fact that one can not always have full control over the ends of their intentions (intentions that, in order to be in accordance to…

    • 2194 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Peaceful action allows a community to not only highlight the injustices of society, but to create a solution to the problem. To ensure the success of a nonviolent campaign, one must consider the sources of power of the opponent and the need for unity among the protesters. For example, in her Ted Talk, “The Secret to Effective Nonviolent Protest,” Jamila Raqib employs a graphic of a block tower, representing ISIS, with each block representing a necessary component of ISIS’s power, such as skilled labor. As these blocks are removed one by one, the structure of the tower crumbles, and ultimately collapses. Raqib uses a cause-and-effect relationship to illustrate how depriving opponents of their vital resources and institutions allows protesters to attack the oppressors at their foundation to break them from the ground up.…

    • 486 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Back in Hume’s time, there were mainly three schools of thought regarding the nature of morality. This debate was initiated by Thomas Hobbes’ view that moral obligations and duties came from self-regarding motives. In response to Thomas Hobbes’ argument, there are two schools of thought, namely rationalism and sentimentalism. Rationalists such as Samuel Clarke argued that morality could be explained by pure reason , and acting morally is just the same as acting rationally. Hume is on the side of the sentimentalists, as he rejects reason as the basis of morality . Hume argues, rather, that it is our moral sentiments that serve as the basis of moral approvals and disapprovals . In Hume’s picture, each action produces certain feelings in the recipients, be it pain or pleasure, and it is through sympathizing with the recipients which we have an impression of the resulting pain or pleasure in the recipients, and thus approve of or disapprove of the active person’s character trait which led to the action.…

    • 216 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hume suggests looking for those general principles in nature but cautions on the ambiguous and various senses of the word 'natural'. (T 3.1.2.7) He says later that 'the word natural...is of so loose a signification, that it seems vain to dispute, whether justice be natural or not' (EPM Appx. 3.9.) It is important that he clears this up early, the categorisation of several virtues, notably 'justice', depends critically on a clear definition. Leaving 'natural' open to interpretation would also raise difficulties in placing many of the 70 or more 'virtues he names. If the virtues could category hop it might cause problems for the idea of having a distinction at all. Having raised this issue he resolves it by describing various senses or contexts in which 'natural' could be commonly understood:…

    • 1432 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sympathy, under Hume’s definition, clearly varies in terms of degree with the different connections the objects of sympathy have with us: we are more able to sympathize with a person close to us than with an indifferent stranger, and we sympathize more readily with our compatriot than with a person from another country with a different color of skin, as implied by the principle of association of ideas. Moral evaluations, on contrary, should not vary with the relationships the person, whose character trait is being evaluated, has with us. It is therefore counterintuitive for Hume to have his account of morality based on sympathy, which apparently possesses such a biased character. When two persons, with different relationships with us, share…

    • 685 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hume believes the root of morality is emotion. He believes emotions, or passions, as he calls them, are the driving force behind our actions. Hume believes that how we feel about things determines what we determine is moral or immoral. There is no logical reason for keeping one’s promises if there is no benefit to you. However, we as a people have decided that keeping one’s word is moral because we would like someone to do that for us. We keep our promises because we want people to think kindly of us. There is no logic behind it, but there is emotion. Even when there is nothing to be gained for us by keeping our promises, we still maintain its moral to keep them because of how it makes us feel. This means, even when it is illogical to do something, if we feel it is moral, we should do it. Reason is not enough to change how we behave. It can give us some direction but it cannot compel us to do…

    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant philosophy has contributed in development of "pure" moral philosophy, a "metaphysics of morals" that is based on the concepts of reason, not on empirical observations. According to his philosophy moral obligations are applicable to all human beings as it applies not only for particular person in particular situation, but also to all rational beings in all circumstances.…

    • 477 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phil 3033

    • 402 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Kant’s moral theory begins from the starting point of the good will. In assessing the moral worth on an action we must focus not on the consequences of results of the action, but on the agent’s will ( the motivation of conducting an action is really important).…

    • 402 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Kant and Emerson

    • 2207 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The readings of Immanuel Kant’s “Observations of Enjoyment” and Ralph Emerson’s pieces titled “Art “ and “ Circles” displayed a kind of similarity between the two very different writers. Throughout my essay you will see just how they are similar and what one would possible think of the others ideas. You see no ideas are necessarily right or wrong ultimately like in life people do not always agree…

    • 2207 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In his work Of Justice, David Hume puts great emphasis on distribution of property in society. Hume believes that only the conception of property gives society such social virtue as justice. Justice, according to Hume, is an important social virtue the sole purpose of which is public utility. To prove his point of view about how property distribution defines the existence of justice in society, David Hume gives several examples. Take an example of utopian society where nature supplies human beings with every convenience in great abundance. It is a state where everyone has anything he/she desires in great amounts. Consequently, there is no any conception of property, because there is no need for it – you can have everything without putting labor on it. Of course, in such a state, Hume argues, every virtue will flourish, except justice. Why make separation of property, if everyone has more than enough; where there is no need to label objects "mine" or "yours", because both of us can have these objects in great amount without any physical or mental exercise? Hume also gives real life examples, of water and air; because of their great amount, no one is trying to control over them, separate them. According to Hume, in such cases justice is no longer exists in the list of virtues. For property, Hume thinks, plays an essential role in making justice useful for people. OK – but you quote yourself from a previous paper…

    • 1494 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant knowing quite well of the difficulties, where he acknowledged that all moral philosophies are based on pure parts, and that even though the idea of pure practical reason may be good, as human beings affected by many worldly attachments, the incorporation of that idea into daily practice is not so easily accepted. And because of this reason, Kantianism has very rigid and cumbersome rules that sometimes seem out of contact with reality of society. It is because Kant realizes that doctrine of morals were first founded on a metaphysics of morals, but was later changed in order to increase its popularity in society. And this change ruined morals with merit into principles that are only retaining half the reason and moral. This seems to be describing Utilitarianism. The founding idea of its moral, common nobility was an idea of value. However, the philosophers tried to adapt the moral standard towards the actions of society rather than making society changing its actions to adapt to the moral law. This mixture of moral philosophy and worldly inclinations not only does not cut a clear boundary of good and bad, it also gives room for an individual to act according to his/her motives, which may or may not be accord to the moral law. Since Kant realized this dangerous downward spiral of morality, he set boundaries that seemingly…

    • 1797 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant’s moral argument focuses on reason, good will, duty and the notion that we ought to strive towards moral perfection (Summum Bonum). He believes that people are ruled by a ‘moral law’. This moral law for Kant was universal and objective. An example of this might be seen in the wide scale agreement that murder or torture is wrong. There seems to be agreement across cultures that certain actions are intrinsically wrong. This, for Kant, suggests that there is a universal objective moral law. He believed that the highest form of goodness was the notion of good will, namely that someone would freely choose to do good for no reward whatsoever, only for the sake of goodness. Moreover, Kant believed that we have a moral duty to do such good things. He would argue that we have an awareness of what is right and wrong and that good will should make us act accordingly as reason dictates this to be the case. In a way it doesn’t make any rational sense to act in an immoral way.…

    • 602 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Immanuel Kant created a handful of formulations regarding his system of determining morality, the Categorical Imperative. James and Stuart Rachels in The Elements of Moral Philosophy, illuminate Kant's first and second Categorical Imperatives. While Kant claims the formulations are equivalent, they offer differing guidelines on how the Categorical Imperative is operated. Although the formulations share the same basis, the difference regarding how the formulations are adhered, is a large distinction difficult to ignore, and renders the two versions as separate subjects.…

    • 675 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays