Nietzsche Vs Hume

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.

Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two widely acclaimed philosophers due to the groundwork they made towards the philosophical principles of morality. However, even though they both have openly discussed their views, they have ended up contradicting each other. Kant implied that morality is not learned, but rather predestined, whereas Nietzsche alluded to a experience based morality, or one that is learned through actions and memories. Although these two men have accepted views of morality, the ideas of Nietzsche seem more applicable in relation to the present day; the world is constantly changing. There are two separate scenarios in which the issues of 'thou shalt not lie ' and 'thou shalt not steal, ' are morally assessed. The end results are supportive towards Nietzsche 's principles and detrimental towards Kant 's ideas. Overall, the moral concepts of Nietzsche will prevail as a result, illustrating the more probable use of his ideology.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

German philosophers Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) have traditionally been viewed as polar opposites in terms of their philosophy. Hegel has been dubbed an idealist and a systematic philosopher who identified various different types of History, theoretical entities and concepts. Nietzsche, on the other hand, is seen to be a counter-Enlightenment and counter-systematic philosopher who penned the well-known text, ‘Genealogy of Morals’. In this essay, I aim to bring to light the underlying similarities between the two thinkers that have previously been overlooked, as well as to identify the differences in Hegel and Nietzsche’s ideologies and presuppositions.

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.

While it appears, on the outside, that John Stewart Mill contradicts Nietzsche’s idea that the mind serves deeper than our inner human drive, however, the story of Mills life seems to actually confirm itself. You see, Nietzsche believes that your instincts define who you are and if you go through life using your brain making all your decisions for you, you aren’t being true to who you really are. Nietzsche talked about how Socrates uses reason to influence his instincts and make decisions that way; he thought this was the one downside to Socrates. It's almost as though Socrates was tricking himself so that his instincts were overshadowed by his reason. John Stewart Mill used his

In today’s paper, I will be discussing Mill and Nietzsche. These two have differing opinions on what the biggest threat to society are: Mill argues that Freedom of Speech is essential to finding the truth (Mill, 2006, p. P12)– so even controversial opinions should be listened to. He fears that the tyranny of the majority could mean the Truth could be lost because alternative opinions are not listened to. The other threat to society to Mill is that women have fewer rights then men – such as voting – he believes women should be allowed to have the same opportunities (John Stuart Mill; Alan Ryan, 2006). In contrast, Nietzsche believes the biggest threat to society is the assumption that morality is natural. Morality is dangerous because

Hume’s ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the capability of reason.

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 first are innate and arise naturally and are independent of obligation and opinions, whereas the latter are the result of obligation in order to support the necessities of a society. Hume further on explains that the inclinations of our natural duties are not enough to maintain peace and order in a society since everyone is directed by his/her passions, but that experience and observation have shown that an authoritative power is necessary in a society. Thus, the second type of moral duties that are based on obligation and power come into play with the establishment of the

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are philosophers who addressed the issues of morality in terms of how moral customs are formed. Immanuel Kant presented one perspective in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that is founded on his belief that the worth of man is inherent in his skill to reason. John Stuart Mill holds

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

Nieztsche and Freud both philosophers of the 19th century, each famous for their different but similar metaphors. Nieztshche’s metaphor being the Ubermensch (ove rman) which was the ideal superior man who in the coming future would go over the morals of Christianity and force his values to be accepted. Freud was the founder of the psychoanalysis which is the analysis of the human psyche, with his investigations he discovered the id, ego and superego.

If circumstances were to be repeated exactly the same, there could be no other outcome than what is expected. He illustrate that the concepts of necessary connections and causation result only from the observation of constant conjunction, “where similar objects are constantly conjoined together and the mind is determined by custom to infer the one from the appearance of another” (Hume 523). Hume progress about how human actions are necessary with a claim that there is a “great uniformity among all the actions of mankind” (Hume 523). He finds that throughout history, across cultures and across ages, human actions and behaviors remains relatively constant. Therefore, Hume emphasize that similar motives produce similar actions and similar causes produce similar events. Human passions and qualities such as “ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit,” (Hume 523) all which have been created from the beginning of time, are still relevant sources of all the actions and driving source that is still observed among human beings—they all spring from a certain regularity and expectation.

The dawn of the Enlightenment brought forth a slew of radical notions that challenged society’s dominant sentiments at the time. With the onslaught of conversations about the nature and purpose of humanity, Enlightenment thinkers conceived novel concepts of anti-authoritarian thinking, empiricism, and the role of reason in humanity. As the Enlightenment led to an upheaval in how intellectuals took the authority of traditional learning, new conversations about the human condition were born. Namely, an emphasis on reason and logic as the primary mechanisms of humanity was developed. Prolific Scottish philosopher David Hume, best known for his radical use of skepticism to examine every possible concept in the vast index of Enlightenment values, emerged as a revolutionary departure from the traditional French and English Enlightenment thinkers. Hume was known for applying a brand of skepticism in his consideration of concepts such as reason, human sympathy, and the authority of traditional ideas. While David Hume’s extreme skepticism challenges preconceived notions of Enlightenment values, his approach is ultimately quite reflective of the core beliefs that represent the pinnacle of Enlightenment thought; thereby reinforcing such values while simultaneously casting them in an increasingly realistic light.