Comparing David Hume and Immanuel Kant Essay

Hobbes and Kant both give a different account of the foundations of morality. Drawing from Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I will compare their understanding of the foundations of morality. I will discuss the conflicting accounts of the role played by reason versus the role played by desire and inclination in the determination of what is good, evil, right or wrong. Hobbes claims that ordinary experiences establish human beings as self-interested and are driven by desire or aversion and that is why morality is grounded by subjective self-interests. On the other hand, Kant provides a purely rational principle for ordinary views about unconditional moral value, morality has a universal law that applies to all rational beings at all times. The following paper will identify and explain the key points and sources of difference between Hobbes and Kant. First, I will explain both understandings of morality. Second, I will describe how the account of the foundations of morality differs in human nature, rationality and conceptions of morality. I will, in conclusion, argue that Hobbes’ account of morality best works with our ordinary experiences and moral convictions.

We see that Kant establishes that a moral action effectively consists of a moral intention motivating that action. Therefore, doing the right thing because it is right. Kant describes motives that are selfish, and for the wrong reasons as ‘motives of inclination.’ In the seatbelt example, we see a motive of inclination behind the action of putting a seatbelt on to avoid a fine.

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

John Locke and David Hume, both great empiricist philosophers who radically changed the way people view ideas and how they come about. Although similar in their beliefs, the two have some quite key differences in the way they view empiricism. Locke believed in causality, and used the example of the mental observation of thinking to raise your arm, and then your arm raising, whereas Hume believed that causality is not something that can be known, as a direct experience of cause, cannot be sensed. Locke believed that all knowledge is derived from our senses, which produce impressions on the mind which turn to ideas, whereas Hume's believed that all knowledge is derived from experiences,

‘The relationship between Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and David Hume (1711-1776) is a source of wide spread fascination’ (Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Kant and Hume on Morality). Purpose of this essay is to provide Immanuel Kant’s claims on sympathy and David Hume’s assessment on it, backed up by their reasoning’s. By doing so, strong argument will separately be provided from both sides and the task then is to present my personal opinion on whose argument seems more compelling. David Hume’s assessment and arguments appear more compelling than Immanuel Kant.

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals serves the purpose of founding moral theory from moral judgment and examining whether there is such thing as a ‘moral law’ that is absolute and universal. In chapter three of his work, he discusses the relationship between free will and the moral law and claims “A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same.” He stands firm in his belief that moral law is what guides a will that is free from empirical desires. To be guided by moral laws it would require men to be ideal rational agents.

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

On the other hand, there are few to none examples of a Categorical Imperative, because as Kant would believe, they have to be actions that are good in themselves completely. To arrive at the Categorical Imperative, Kant starts off by explaining that an action is good without qualification if done from duty and not primarily from inclination, or ulterior motives. This, in a more simplified manner, means an action is good if it was the right thing to do and a person did it for the sake of duty and not because of anything else, like instincts or feelings. Kant believes there are very few people in this world that can actually live up to the standard of duty. From this point, Kant states that moral worth is determined by the rule or principle by which an action has been decided, not in the purpose to be attained by it. This statement goes back to the difference of means versus ends; is a person’s action based on the mean or is it based on ends? After Kant arrives at this, he then affirms that duty is the reverence for the law. The difference between reason and will is established at this point. Reason, or thought, can be described as theoretical or pure reason, or it can be described as practical reason. Kant describes theoretical reason as determining a given concept, but practical reason is idea of making the concept actual. Will, on the other side, can be broken down to either the “holy will” or empirically mixed

is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher known for being an empiricist and for being skeptical of religion. Like Hobbes, he was also a big influence on western philosophy. Among his many works, his major writing include, treatise of human nature and enquiry concerning the principles of morals. In an enquiry concerning the principles of morals, Hume introduces his fovarism towards the role of sentiment. He argued reason solely cannot be a motive of any action and that reason can never resist the motive of passion "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions,"(pg 415). He explains that Moral distinctions are developed from the moral sentiments such as feelings of approval and disapproval felt by an action. Hume believes that pleasure and pain are the causes of the passions that drive our actions. According to Hume, it is the pleasure and pain that are the causes of the passions which drives our actions. He claims that it is the actual experience of the pain or pleasure, not the reason we adduce to their causes that drives us to act.” Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not

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

The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.