Hume vs. Kant: Moral Philosophy

Kant believed that following ones duty was not measurable by the end means, yet it “is good only through its willing”. This meant that it is good only if it is good in itself. He believes under the categorical imperative, one must only act upon the maxim if it is willable under the universal law. And these maxims must be contradiction free and purposeful to be considered moral. Kant believed that we as hum... ... middle of paper ... ... feel beneath you to uplift ones self.

This is not an ideal situation because placing a slight neglect to a duty or obligation that you might not find appeal in defeats the purpose of completing all of the obligations set for us to go through with. Kant’s thesis has strength in the fact that the universal law seems closely related to the golden rule, which is do on to others as you would have others do on to you. With a statement as such it is awfully arduous to not perform a moral action. The weakness still lies in the fact Kant takes little to no consideration to humans’ natural emotions and feelings. Leading a moral life does not have to be a melancholy life, one in which you are bound to an endless amount of duties that you can seek no joy in.

However, he did think that God was a postulate of practical reason. The word postulate meaning an assumption of truth as the basis of an argument or theory, although Kant used the term in a stronger sense, to denote the idea of something which is required to be the case. The postulates of morality, for example, denote the assumptions that must be made by anyone who accepts an objective morality. Kant had great trust in the universe being fair, and that if summum bon... ... middle of paper ... ...ee it as an aim and would therefore never strive to achieve it. With a goal or an aspiration, there is always the chance that we may not acquire it, which essentially makes us make every effort.

Kantian Morality Central to Kant’s morality theory is his claim that: “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will” (Cottingham, 2008: 507). When a person engages, according to this tenet, in a noble action due the fact that its driving force is an ingrained personal characteristic, such deed would, according to Kant, not qualify as it having a moral motive. He regards such deeds as being driven by a person’s inclination to do such a deed. When a deed, according to Kant, is however engaged in irrespective of the performer’s inclinations or desires, but rather due to the driving force behind such action being the sense of duty, only then, according to him, can it be regarded as a morally noble motive. He regards such an act being conducted due to “good will” and regards such actions as the sole moral motive due to the fact that it is driven by the motive of duty as opposed to the motive of action which is driven by “will” (Study Guide PLS3705, 2014:77).

Kant adds to this point by saying the laws we base our actions upon must be self-imposed. They cannot be imposed by outside sources because then, our actions would just be based on natural necessity; we would simply be reacting to external causes. To see how Kant’s statement translates into saying an autonomous will is bound by moral law, we must first understand what morality is, and how one achieves it. Kant believes that morality is an a priori concept, or one that is independent of any experiences of the world. Morality stems from the idea of the ‘good will’, which Kant argues is the only thing truly ‘good’ in the world.

The categorical imperative is based on the single notion that one should act only on maxims that can reasonably and without contradiction be made a universal law. As such, it does not consider the details of circumstance and holds true universally, because it relies solely on a priori concepts. I will further explain Kant’s formulations of this imperative momentarily. Now that we have just seen the first type of imperative,... ... middle of paper ... ...aw. Kant rewrites this concept of universalizing maxims to determine duty in a second formulation that, while tests actions differently, he believes leads to the same moral conclusions.

Hume strongly opposes the idea that moral judgments are the conclusion of reason. The role of reason in relation to moral judgments is to be only in relation to the passions. Reason must be slave to man’s passions. Reason is to help man find his moral obligations and duties, but reason does not produce or act on obligation or moral duty; man’s passions motivate one to act. Passion is the criterion for all moral judgments because there are no absolute moral values.

Kant's duty to have no worldview is because it's his own way of thought in a realistic way. In a nutshell PowerPoint his theory is above the world view Idealism/ Realism, But in deeper thought, " Kant claims that ethics should not be dependent on a particular worldview, his “duty based ethical theory is rooted in logic and language, and is in line with an Idealistic perspective"(RAE). Simply put," the Good is that which is good for everyone. The Good is that which is universal"( In a nutshell). Kant also believed that "it's our duty to align our intentions with the good as identified by the application of the Categorical Imperative" ( Immanuel Kant).

“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will”(kant, 393). In fact, Kant bases its principle of morality on the attempt of the unconditional good, in other words “the good will”. According to Kant, human should act in a condition of moral duty... ... middle of paper ... ...g unique. For him, only compassion can be used as a basis for morality. Compare Kant and Schopenhauer could be seen strange since they are fathers of two different doctrines.

According to the CI, it is an absolute necessity, a command that humans should accord with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves and exercise their will without any concerns ab... ... middle of paper ... ... In conclusion, Kant, Arendt, and Mill hold different moralities. The three philosophers all have different ways to analyze and perceive ethical principles. They all base their views on varying concepts of morality. Kant’s deontological ethics is grounded on concepts of duty, the categorical imperative, and good will.