Comparing Hume And Rousseau

Hume discusses much about how morality is just based off of our own volition. I believe this to be true. Hume extends on this further stating impulse arises not from reason, but is only directed by it. While humans have a general knowledge of right and wrong, it ultimately is up to our passions and sensations that drive us to our moral decisions. I find Hume to have a very original, thought out, and realistic take on how moral decisions are derived and where reason stands in one’s decision making.

In comparison to Rousseau, I think Hume’s view is similar. They both speak of reason and what it’s relation to morality is. Although they are arguing different points about reasoning each makes sense in its own context and each has valid points to prove their way. Hobbes suggestion about good and evil being matters of taste differs from Hume in that it is not that one desires to be good or evil, but that one’s emotions that causes actions resulting in becoming good or evil. Hobbes was much more grim in that point since his view of humans was that man is out to kill each other having only regard for himself and his property.Hume didn’t speak much of man’s morality by nature, just that emotions control which way our moral compass goes. Of the two, I believe Hume to have a better account …show more content…
From my understanding any action that results from anything other than pure duty without any personal intentions should be void. If that is the case then I cannot consider this legitimate. I believe there are very few duties that can be acted upon without at least some sort personal benefit being added to it. To me this is like saying people should work their life without any sort of payment and just be happy about it. If Kant is correct that all actions that root from personal beneficence lack moral worth then there wouldn’t be good and bad because morality wouldn’t