Kant's View Of Morality

Good Essays
Kant and Hobbes had totally different understanding of the issue of morality. This disparity was informed by their varying thought systems. Kant took a more rationalistic view of morality, while Hobbes was more empirical in this regard. However, both proceeded from a subjective point. That is to say that they took a person centered approach to issues of morality. The aim of this study is to compare Hobbes and Kant with regard to their understanding of the foundations of morality. It also seeks to identify and explicate the points that advance the differences seen in them. The understandings of these two philosophers differ in terms of reason, understanding of human nature, as well as understanding of morality. This study will show the extent …show more content…
Following practical reason, Kant found that such an approach only revealed the imperative to obey desire based principles (Feldman, 1978). The Categorical Imperative was according to Kant not an instrumental principle (Paton, 1947). However, a conformity with this imperative was very important the rational agent. Kant has a very interesting understanding of morality. The will, which is very central to morality is totally independent from other wills, and as such cannot depend on any other for its determination. In other words, the will is totally free to create the laws that will bind it. This subjective understanding of morality rejects the conventional understanding which sets a framework of behavioral codes. By arguing along these lines, Kant is placing supremacy on reason, as opposed to passions (Paton, 1947). From these considerations, Kant argued that every person was equal with the other, because each had a free will, which was not determined by any other. According to Kant, it was important to act according to what was understood as right, rather than according to what was understood to be …show more content…
The sole aim of these laws is the preservation of the lives of the human persons. Morality is therefore created at the point of the making of the social contract. This understanding is informed by the fact that in the state of nature, before civilization, human beings are totally violent and hostile to each other, being in a state of war at all times. It became important therefore, that persons give power to a central figure, which would regulate the conduct of persons. In this respect, this figure is in the person of the leviathan (Hobbes, 1996). According to Hobbes, the reason why it becomes easy for people to come to a consensus regarding morality is that there is an inherent quest for peace, which is a result of an opposition of the constant conflicts and hostilities, which is the natural state of the human person. The social contract comes as a result of a surrender of some of the natural rights for the sake of peace (Hobbes, 1996). Morality as such does not exist before the making of the social contract. Strictly speaking, human persons have no moral principles; this is because the natural state is that of competition, and where fighting for supremacy is the primary reality. Therefore, the fundamental argument in Hobbes is that morality is a child of mutual consent, not desires (Malcolm,

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    The only genuinely good actions are the actions done exclusively out of respect for the moral rules. Kantian theory is an example of a deontological theory, meaning that the rightfulness or wrongfulness of actions does not depend on the results of the action, but instead, depends on the motives behind the action itself. This deontological approach relates to the supreme principle of morality that Kant referred to as the ‘Categorical…

    • 905 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In other words doing your duty without regard for a desire, goal, or motive. Kant believed that by doing your duty you are functioning morally. Morality, under Kant’s interpretation must be applicable to everyone at all times, places, and societies and cannot be hypothetical. A categorical imperative is based on priori knowledge; independent of sense experience, where reason is used to determine what is and isn’t universally accepted as moral. Categorical imperatives are not personal or vary from one person to another.…

    • 763 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This shows a key difference between the principle of utility, as an action isn’t required with Kant, they’re merely acceptable. The next underlying principle with Kant’s theory is the principle of humanity. This is put as, always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means. The term “mere means” relates to an individual’s autonomy coming secondary to yours, deceiving someone, or not respecting another person’s goals. “End in itself” would be the opposite, to respect an individual’s autonomy and what their trying to…

    • 1103 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, both are flawed in my opinion. David Hume’s belief that morality is based on emotion and Kant on his belief that morality is based on the categorical imperative. I believe these two ideologies lie at both ends of the extreme. Nevertheless, given only the two arguments, I must say that morality must be determined more on reason that emotion. Therefore, I would have to side with Immanuel Kant.…

    • 1013 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this passage Hume clearly states that private benevolence does not form a basis for justice because the meaning of it may change and even fail. Therefore, justice cannot be a natural virtue. In conclusion, Hume believes that justice is based on convention and tries to aim that social virtues are most important for mutual agreements to be in order. As citizens, it is our duty and obligation to obey the laws that we have agreed to follow and because they are in our best interest as a society. Hume’s discussion of justice is important and its’ purpose of discussion was t find the origin and nature of the virtue.…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Unlike Utilitarianism, Kant’s moral law does not concern the consequences of a particular action rather it considers an action right or wrong with respect to a formal rule or law rather than the consequence of an action. Kant counters Utilitarianism by arguing that, “trying to derive moral principles from the desires we happen to have is the wrong way to think about morality. Just because something gives many people pleasure doesn’t make it right” (Sandel). Kant’s morality, their realization, and the pleasure thereby attained, is about the binding force of the “ought” rather than about individuals need. For example lying is never right whatever the circumstances at there, For Kant, morality is a principles for everyone including the one who lies and because we cannot lie to anyone, which should become a universal law, we all need to obey.…

    • 1682 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    “We could not prove freedom to be something actual in ourselves and in human nature. We saw merely that we must presuppose it if we want to think of a being as rational and as endowed with consciousness of its causality as regards actions” (Page 311). Immanuel Kant believed that freedom is a presupposition of morality. Kant was not concerned with the purity of your will for doing something, but rather with the derivation of moral principles from reason alone for example independently of experience. He focused on emphasized the importance of reason and the ration that comes with our moral principles.…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant presented a universal and impartial moral code called the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is meant to help us make moral decisions. However, it discounts moral emotions such as compassion and sympathy as appropriate and ethical…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The morality can be determined prior to the action. 2. Categorical imperative as used in Kant’s ethical theory is the tool which tries to eliminate the use of self-interest in deriving what we perceive to be moral. According to the categorical imperative, only actions which are done in fulfillment of duty are regarded to be moral but not action done from the motive of self-interest. From his view, any action done from self-interest are taken to be prudent rather than moral.…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In summation, the modern philosophers Kant and Mill have a vast degree of differences present in their philosophies, with few similarities, manifesting mostly in the fact that both Kant and Mill view philosophy from differing perspectives. Kant views philosophy as a transcendental idealist, with a hint of rationalism, whereas…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays