Hume's position in ethics, which is based on his empiricist theory of the mind, is best known for asserting four theses: (1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions” (see Section 3) (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason (see Section 4). (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action (see Section 7). (4) While some virtues and vices are natural (see Section 13), others, including justice, are artificial (see Section 9). There is heated debate about what Hume intends by each of these theses and how he argues for them. He articulates and defends them
…show more content…
Kant: Morality
Hume and Kant are two of the most influential philosophers in human history. Their contributions to moral philosophy have had a great impact on our understanding of how morality and ethics works. Although they share the common interest of moral and ethical foundations, their theories could not be any more different from each other. Hume’s treatment of moral philosophy is empirical while Kant believes morality lies in priori principles. David Hume truly believed that human experience is the closest we can ever get to the truth. He believes that our causal beliefs are not based on reason but that we form a habit of association based on experience. To Hume there is no causality in the physical universe. All causality is, is a habit of mind or imaginative activity by us humans, as we observe the world. He argues against the idea that the world is held together by logic. He believes that from a description of events you cannot logically infer other events. He also believes that the self is an illusion. He believes we can only observe ourselves by what we are experiencing at a specific moment in time. Hume suggests that the self is only t made up of our perception describing them …show more content…
Kant’s view is that morality depends on our reason. He defines reason differently than Hume. Reason is a universal human capacity that apprehends the limits of our knowledge and separates us from the world of the senses. Kant believes we live in two worlds the natural world and the intelligible world. He is saying that since morality depends on reason it is not a function of happiness, consequences or feelings, but duty. The only thing in this world or beyond it that is good in itself is a good will. The rules for using a good will are what he calls the categorical imperative. A good will is always good no matter what happens in the world. What exactly goes into having a good will? To Kant when someone acts out of a good will what they are doing is acting according to duty for the sake of duty. To figure out our duty in a specific situation Kant says all that matters is that a person’s intentions are good and based on duty. What we should do Kant suggest, is act as if our decision applies to all people in all situations at all times. For example, if we lie because the outcome is desirable, Kant would say you are not acting out of duty. We wouldn’t be able to agree that this should be a rule for every person at all times. Telling the truth at all times is thus, our duty. Kant believes that when we act with a good will by doing our duty we are acting in a purely reasonable manner. Since we are at base reasonable beings, when we act purely
Kant: Morality
Hume and Kant are two of the most influential philosophers in human history. Their contributions to moral philosophy have had a great impact on our understanding of how morality and ethics works. Although they share the common interest of moral and ethical foundations, their theories could not be any more different from each other. Hume’s treatment of moral philosophy is empirical while Kant believes morality lies in priori principles. David Hume truly believed that human experience is the closest we can ever get to the truth. He believes that our causal beliefs are not based on reason but that we form a habit of association based on experience. To Hume there is no causality in the physical universe. All causality is, is a habit of mind or imaginative activity by us humans, as we observe the world. He argues against the idea that the world is held together by logic. He believes that from a description of events you cannot logically infer other events. He also believes that the self is an illusion. He believes we can only observe ourselves by what we are experiencing at a specific moment in time. Hume suggests that the self is only t made up of our perception describing them …show more content…
Kant’s view is that morality depends on our reason. He defines reason differently than Hume. Reason is a universal human capacity that apprehends the limits of our knowledge and separates us from the world of the senses. Kant believes we live in two worlds the natural world and the intelligible world. He is saying that since morality depends on reason it is not a function of happiness, consequences or feelings, but duty. The only thing in this world or beyond it that is good in itself is a good will. The rules for using a good will are what he calls the categorical imperative. A good will is always good no matter what happens in the world. What exactly goes into having a good will? To Kant when someone acts out of a good will what they are doing is acting according to duty for the sake of duty. To figure out our duty in a specific situation Kant says all that matters is that a person’s intentions are good and based on duty. What we should do Kant suggest, is act as if our decision applies to all people in all situations at all times. For example, if we lie because the outcome is desirable, Kant would say you are not acting out of duty. We wouldn’t be able to agree that this should be a rule for every person at all times. Telling the truth at all times is thus, our duty. Kant believes that when we act with a good will by doing our duty we are acting in a purely reasonable manner. Since we are at base reasonable beings, when we act purely