Hume Versus Kant Essay

Hume and Kant offered dickens differing views on chasteity. Humes philosophy regarding honorable theory came from the belief that precedent al whizz slew neer cerebrate numeralion. Desire or thoughts cause action. Because reason alone muckle never cause action, theology is grow in us and our perception of the world and what we want to gain from it. honor arises from performing on a appetite to wait on early(a)s. Humes moralistic theory is therefore a virtue-centered morality rather than the natural-law morality, which saw morality as coming from beau ideal. Kants nonion of morality stems from his nonion of one universal moral law.This law is pertinent to tot ally people and can be used at all times before carrying our actions match to Kant, you ought to act according to the maxim that is qualified for universal law liberal that is, you ought to act so that the maxim of your action may become a universal law. While Hume and Kants moral theory differ dramatical ly, they bring in one quality and that is the fact that neither centers around the concept of God and his will. Humes theories may be considered by some non sincerely philosophic theories at all. It is to say that he is not searching for that philosophical life that is seen in a Plato, or Augustine.He believes that capitalism promotes successfulness for people, and that only science and math is the realm for reason. To discuss Humes respectable theory you have to look at the central theme, which be feelings. Humes ethical theory says that moral judgments atomic number 18 made on feelings as oppose to reason. Humes feelings argon establish upon the belief that people gull moral judgments because it is effective to society. He uses the examples of benevolence and justice to support this idea. tidy-will leads to happiness in society, which is the main basis for moral approval.Justice, for Hume, is regarded as good because again it is useful to society. He says that justice would not exist if e rattlingbody was not egoish, and one of its main uses is to protect private property. Justice for Hume is a very business oriented type of justice in which a exercise that is made must be suitable for both parties. If valet were not selfish than justice would not even come to mind in these types of situations because the transaction would be totally dominated by one individual, and that would not be justice. Humes view poses the question, which is better social peace or economic prosperity?Hume states that human universes are an animal whose life consists of mercenary pleasures, and this is what leads them to a euphoric life. Again we see a clear contradiction in terms to what traditional philosophers believe to be a happy life. As you can see Hume leaves aside the spiritual, reasoning, and thinking part of human nature. Leaving all these factors out(p) he comes up with his contri neverthelessions to the well existence of society. He believes that chas tity, confidentiality, avoiding gossip, avoiding spying, being well mannered, and loyal are what can lead you to becoming prosperous.Hume looks at this from being prosperous only from a business-orientated point of view. People do like to become prosperous and have economic growth, but is that all that matters to us as humans? For Hume these feelings are justified because he says that we course care about other people and if we do not keep from something we have a natural inclination to help others out. Hume finally comes a conclusion to his ethical theory in which he states that there are only four reasons in which to do chastely good useful to society, useful to oneself, agreeable to oneself, agreeable to others.Actions that are chastely good are categorized into one of these four categories. These actions must be made with theory or feeling over reason, for Hume states man is a creature with feelings and reason lets us figure that out. Hume believed that reason is, and ought only to be, the break ones back of the passions. He argued that reason is used to discover the causes of injure or pleasure, but it is the prospect of pain or pleasure that causes action, not the reasoning alone, as that is entirely indifferent to us.This notion of always being motivated by pleasure or pain is very important, as it follows from this that when we act morally, it is a desire that makes us act and not reason. Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, if follows that they cannot be derived from reason, and that because reason alone, as we have already proved, can never have any such influence. Kant takes a different approach in his ethical theory and the understanding of morality and what is morally good.For Kant moral justice is defined as goodwill, and that we as humans have a moral obligation to do what is right. He says that moral worth is seen much clearer if someone does things out of barter. Opposite of what Hume says Kant bel ieves that feelings and inclinations are irrelevant and that feelings are not what motor moral obligations. Then how does Kant justify what is morally obliged? He has sour out feelings, and has left it as an obligation for people. For Kant first you must take out all feelings. Moral obligation must be back for everyone.If any action cannot be approved be everyone than it is not morally obliged. The standard for moral standards has to be universal or coercive. Kants ethical theory is put into a comparison of matte and hypothetical imperatives. vatic imperatives are looked upon as recommendations or laws by others. This is to say that it is someone else or some other thing is telling us what to do. Hypothetical imperatives are unproblematic. They are straightforward sentences that express mundane statements of fact. Categorical ones, on the other hand, are highly problematic.Categorical imperatives deal with autonomy. These are the moral obligations that Kant believes in, the mo rally obliged actions. In Kants view, only if a person is acting solely on the categorical imperative such as doing something out of duty, can the act be morally good. This is because if somebody is acting out of the hypothetical imperative, he/she has an ulterior motive in acting in that way and are therefore not acting out of duty but are pursuing a certain end. They need not be acting in self-interest, but if they act because of a desire to act in that way, this is not morally worthy.You can until now act morally if it gives you pleasure, as long as the reason for your action is solely out of duty. For instance we ought to help other because you may need help some day. What makes it valuable is that it is valuable in itself. It allows us to treat ourselves and others with self respect. It is clearly seen that in Kants theory there is no feelings or emotions attached to these theories only obligations that will benefit all of society. When taking into banknote who is right or wr ong, the type of person you are comes into put to work.Some individuals awake(p) their lives based off of feelings and emotions alone, and most finishs that these types of individuals make are what is going to them happy or something that could perhaps make them sad but another assemblage in society happy. Then there are the other groups of individuals that do things without thinking of who they will affect but only take into answer for what they believe they should do based on societys circumstances. eventually the decision on how to make moral judgments should be entirely based on you and your character and your experiences.If a person has been hurt by onerous to be morally good then his feelings will come into play no matter how he made his original decision. If this person was reservation a decision based on obligation and he still got hurt from it in the long run then his next decision could be very feeling based. These two decisions on morality may continue to intertwi ne with each other. Hume and Kant are similar in that their moral theories are not the will as laid down by God, instead they see morality as embedded in humans themselves.However from here the theories diverge. Hume sees moral judgements as being caused by sentiments of pain or pleasure within an agent as reason alone can never motivate, whereas Kant see the only moral actions as being those caused by reason alone, or the categorical imperative. Both theories have trouble with coming up with absolute moral laws Humes theory because absolute morality would appear to be impossible if morality is based on an individuals sentiment, and Kants theory because it cannot prove the existence of the categorical imperative.