This essay is solely based on the German philosopher Kant Immanuel and British philosopher Thomas Hobbes in relation to their study on morals. Both philosophers have their own understanding on the topic of morality in which both perceive ideas in their own way. Kant leans toward more of a rationalistic view of morality, emphasizing the mandatory need to ground the prior principle. Meanwhile, Hobbes has taken more of an empirical view of the fact that we ought to do what we believe in is in relation to self interest but both occur in order to take a subjective point. In other words, they viewed the issue of morality from a person-centered approach. Kant believes that there is a specific standard to morality that it is based upon. Morality is
…show more content…
Both philosophers have similar views in which one is able to analyze their reasoning. According to Hobbes, “whatsoever is the object of any man 's appetite or desire; that is it which he for his part calleth Good: and the object of his Hate and Aversion, evil.” ( Hobbes, 2008, pg33) Things we do not prefer are immediately considered evil based on their belief, but evil is not in the thing itself. One is able to say whether or not something is good or desirable, if it is pleasant or it creates “hope” that of which is pleasant. Whereas, “fear” is when certain goods in our life becomes unattainable. Hobbes believed, “that whatsoever a man does against his conscience, is sin; and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself judge of good and evil.” (Hobbes, 2008, pg198) If one goes against their conscience and desires something or believes that it is the right way, it becomes solely dependent on the individual’s judgement of what they presume to be good or evil. In Hobbes view, he is considered to purse what is most desirable to be in balance with the physical matter in motion, therefore what we think is good is actually formed motions within us. Hobbes believes that anything in relation to good or evil can either be caused by the sovereign state, which everyone is abided too, or by individuals. For example, the use of drugs can bring delight but at the same it is risky making the action impossible. Ones goal is to satisfy the needs of their last desire or aversion. In comparison to Hobbes’ view, Kant displays his opinion through good will, “will can be called absoulety good without qualification? Since I have I have deprived the will of every impulse that might arise for it from obeying any particular law, there is nothing left to serve the will” (Kant, 1998, pg14)One is able to be good without the need of qualification of being good. Human nature and a
Both philosophers have similar views in which one is able to analyze their reasoning. According to Hobbes, “whatsoever is the object of any man 's appetite or desire; that is it which he for his part calleth Good: and the object of his Hate and Aversion, evil.” ( Hobbes, 2008, pg33) Things we do not prefer are immediately considered evil based on their belief, but evil is not in the thing itself. One is able to say whether or not something is good or desirable, if it is pleasant or it creates “hope” that of which is pleasant. Whereas, “fear” is when certain goods in our life becomes unattainable. Hobbes believed, “that whatsoever a man does against his conscience, is sin; and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself judge of good and evil.” (Hobbes, 2008, pg198) If one goes against their conscience and desires something or believes that it is the right way, it becomes solely dependent on the individual’s judgement of what they presume to be good or evil. In Hobbes view, he is considered to purse what is most desirable to be in balance with the physical matter in motion, therefore what we think is good is actually formed motions within us. Hobbes believes that anything in relation to good or evil can either be caused by the sovereign state, which everyone is abided too, or by individuals. For example, the use of drugs can bring delight but at the same it is risky making the action impossible. Ones goal is to satisfy the needs of their last desire or aversion. In comparison to Hobbes’ view, Kant displays his opinion through good will, “will can be called absoulety good without qualification? Since I have I have deprived the will of every impulse that might arise for it from obeying any particular law, there is nothing left to serve the will” (Kant, 1998, pg14)One is able to be good without the need of qualification of being good. Human nature and a