Hume vs. Kant

1110 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: ethical theories kantian

Many different philosophers have their own way of looking at not only the world, but society as a whole. This is clearly seen with the two philosopher’s Kant and Hume. Though totally different styles of philosophizing and looking at an ethical theory, it is not to say that one’s theory is better or more justified than the other. It is perhaps a different point of view or another opinion to take in. We must not directly rule out either Hume or Kant because both of their ethical theories have been approved by numerous philosophers and scholars alike. Do not be mistaken for you can indeed defend one more than the other, it is just an understanding that theories are what people believe and for these two philosophers their theories’ have a very distinct difference in morality.

Hume’s theories may be considered by some not really philosophical theories at all. It is to say that he is not searching for that philosophical life that is seen in a Plato, or Augustine. His ideas are from the foundation of America. He believes that capitalism promotes prosperity for people, and that only science and math is the realm for reason. To discuss Hume’s ethical theory you have to look at the central theme, which are feelings. Hume’s ethical theory says that moral judgments are made on feelings as oppose to reason. Hume’s feelings are based upon the belief that people make moral judgments because it is useful to society. He uses the examples of benevolence and justice to support this idea. Benevolence 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 everybody was not selfish, 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 transaction that is made must be suitable for both parties. If humans 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.

Hume’s view poses the question, which is better social peace or economic prosperity? Hume states that human beings are an animal whose life consists of worldly pleasures, and this is what leads them to a happy life. Again we see a clear contradiction to what “traditiona...

... middle of paper ...

...ety.

When taking into account who is right or wrong, the type of person you are comes into play. Some individuals live their lives based off of feelings and emotions alone, and most decisions that these types of individuals make are what is going to them happy or something that could perhaps make them sad but another group 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 account what they believe they should do based on society’s circumstances. Ultimately 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 trying to be morally good then his feelings will come into play no matter how he made his original decision. If this person was making 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 intertwine with each other. It is not fair to say that you should always react one way or another based on either Kant or Hume but rather what is best at that particular situation.

Show More
Related

  • Kant Vs Aristotle

    1053 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant says that good will is the only thing that is good. Human’s will, functioning well, is the only thing worth moral approval. It doesn’t matter if the person is smart or courageous if the person has a bad will. If someone is doing something for the wrong reason, but they still have courage doing it, it’s still not moral. The point of reason isn’t happiness, which is opposite from what Aristotle says. Some actions might seem like duties, but are just conformities with duty and because of that have no moral worth. An example we used in class would be the case of the misanthropic philanthropist who hates airports, but goes and helps the refugees because it’s the right thing to do. This shows that happiness doesn’t always come with moral

    Read More

  • Reasoning within Animals

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... and wrong. While Descartes believes that all bad things that happen were actually good if we could just see the bigger picture, Hume says this does not matter. The human and animal mind is not created to think of the bigger picture, it is only able to think about what is right in front of it. So in this aspect, humans and animals are both able to perceive what is right and wrong, therefore supporting Hume’s idea that humans and animals aren’t so different.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Ethical Analysis

    552 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.

    Read More

  • Reason Vs Hume Essay

    814 Words  | 2 Pages

    Whilst discussing the basics of moral philosophy, every philosopher will undoubtedly come across the works of Immanuel Kant and David Hume. As they progress into the thoughts of these two famous philosophers they will notice the stark contrast between the pair. Quite simply put, Kant’s works emphasizes that reason is the main source of human being’s morality, while Hume’s work depicts human desire as the driving source of morality. Obviously these two points of view are very different, but it is difficult to say which of these philosophers are more correct than the other.

    Read More

  • A Comparison of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theories

    3195 Words  | 7 Pages

    Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.

    Read More

  • Kant's Moral Theory

    1158 Words  | 3 Pages

    His moral theory states that the rightness of an action is determined by its end or consequence, which means that its moral obligation is based upon what is a good or desirable end, or consequence, to be accomplished. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest-happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Bentham & Mill pg. 99). This means that Mill’s moral theory states that the consequences of an action are the only standard of right, what promotes happiness or pleasure, and wrong, promotes unhappiness or pain, not the rights or moral opinions involved in that circumstance. This opposed to Kant’s deontological moral system concerned with obligation, one’s duty, which is derived from reason rather than in the maximization of some good resulting consequence. Mill’s ethical view is very intuitive and it links pleasure with morality instead of possibly setting pleasure in opposition of morality. “The theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded – namely, that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” (Bentham & Mill pg. 99). His utilitarian principles provide organization to a person’s intuitive morals, such as murder being morally wrong. It also follows people’s common sense belief that pain is bad and pleasure is good which is universal in all people even among those who may have other different and conflicting moral beliefs.

    Read More

  • Driving And Driving: An Introduction To Distracted Driving

    2013 Words  | 5 Pages

    Mary Anderson protected the windshield wiper before the Model T Ford was fabricated in 1908. Numerous thought that her innovation was stupid and accepted the movement of windshield wiper edges would divert drivers. Fast forward and huge numbers of the distracted driving attention toward teenagers and grown-ups, which originate before mobile phone technology, still exist today, for example, talking, consuming, applying cosmetics and changing the radio station while driving. As per the National Safety Council mobile phone membership have increase from 11% of the US populace in 1995 to 93% in 2010. This likewise implies that there has been a relentless increase in cell use while driving. Be that as it may, due to the high rate of accidents every year coming about because of cell phone utilization while driving, America is making a move to keep this hazardous and again and again destructive driving propensity by enacting regulations to prevent it (Goodwin, Foss, Harrell, & O 'Brien,

    Read More

  • Mandated Choice Policy: A Solution to Organ Donor Shortage

    1477 Words  | 3 Pages

    Unfortunately, the life-saving potential of transplantation is limited by the shortage of organs available for donation. In general, several suitable organs from deceased individuals are not harvested for donation (for reasons that will be discussed later) and this largely contributes to the shortage1. In 1968, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act gave individuals the right to donate organs and tissue in the United States1. Donors can either be living or deceased. Living donors are individuals who choose to donate portions of vital organs or a single kidney. Their donations can be directed to a specific recipient or can be an indirect altruistic donation; however, altruistic donations are very rare. Majority of donations come from deceased donors2. Deceased donors are individuals who have been medically declared dead, and who have previously registered as organ donors or whose legal representatives (usually their family members) have authorized organ donation on their behalf. One deceased donor can make up to eight donations from different organs, and therefore, can save up to eight lives4. Candidates for donation are chosen based on their blood-type (it must match the donated organ) and their medical need for a donation (the most critically ill patients are more likely to receive donations). The organs that are currently approved for transplantation are the kidney, heart, lung, and liver. Although living donations are a significant proportion of donations in the United States, this paper will focus on increasing the number of deceased

    Read More

  • David Hume's Argument on Passion and Morality

    1149 Words  | 3 Pages

    Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.

    Read More

  • Cause And Effect Essay On Distracted Driving

    437 Words  | 1 Pages

    As a society, we are becoming increasingly busier. We are always looking for ways to save time. Unfortunately, many people think that they can do that behind the wheel. From eating to talking on the phone, multi-tasking shifts your focus and increases the chances of having an accident

    Read More

  • Of Necessity and Liberty

    1690 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... Hume proposes attributes a sense of moral responsibility lost in Hume’s interpretation for the doctrine of liberty and necessities, for humans are responsible only for their choices.

    Read More

  • A Comparison Of Aristotle And David Hume

    2051 Words  | 5 Pages

    Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.

    Read More

  • Kant Answer Hume On Causality

    1060 Words  | 3 Pages

    To understand Kant’s account on causality, it is important to first understand that this account came into being as a response to Hume’s skepticism, and therefore important to also understand Hume’s account. While Hume thinks that causation comes from repeated experiences of events happening together or following one another, Kant believes that causation is just a function of our minds’ organization of experiences rather than from the actual experiences themselves.

    Read More

  • David Hume on Sentiments and Reason

    1553 Words  | 4 Pages

    Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection” (87). In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can still be sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality, because they can only be true or false.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Descartes And Hume

    1247 Words  | 3 Pages

    Descartes and Hume may have both come from Europe, but there ideas concerning self are opposing. They do both hold similar ideas in some form but their philosophical methodologies lead to conflicting viewpoints.

    Read More

More about Hume vs. Kant

Open Document