Kant Vs Hume

The union between morality and debate has been long and grueling. The tendency to bring subjectivity into a debate that some say requires unwavering objectivity to complete ensures that the circularity continues. Immanuel Kant and David Hume, both pioneers in their own ways, add on to this discussion with two opposing views. Hume approaches it from an empirical mindset, using observable emotion. His primary argument is that morality stems from the public’s determination of what increases social utility. The second premise to this is that an individual’s sentiment towards an action will determine its morality. It is the gut reaction to observing something that determines whether or not it is morally right or wrong. Kant, on the other hand, differs …show more content…
Kant’s argument is that good will is the only unwavering determinant of moral goodness. This stems from his belief of an ‘a priori’ investigation. Kant believes in the necessary universality of laws and describes this as the categorical imperative or the existence of unconditional moral laws that are inherent, and therefore independent of selfishness, be it positive or negative. It is Kant’s belief that it is the duty of individuals to uphold these to themselves and to others. Acting on one’s good will towards others, in Kant’s mind, is our duty as individuals. To act for any other reason, even if the outcome is the same, is not truly in line with moral goodness and waivers from the true purpose. Kant’s belief of action without inclination is sound but unrealistic. The existence of selfishness, in and of itself is just as prevalent as morality in our daily lives. Kant is essentially asking for actions to be completed without sentiment of any kind. That one only acts upon the universal need to spread good will. To ask this is akin to asking humans to ignore their basic …show more content…
He believes that public utility is the basis of morality. Hume’s argued that morality is determined by sentiment, by the emotions brought about in a spectator after witnessing some action. Public utility, e.g. happiness and sadness, is determined by this sentiment. So if the spectating public approves of an act, it increases utility, thereby upholding its moral goodness. This argument is heavily based on sentiment, an arguably subjective component of the human psyche, but it is this reliance that makes it so much more viable than Kant’s beliefs. Imagine a gunman, clearly intent on causing harm, entering a room full of people. His intentions (soon to be actions) would be considered morally wrong by both Kant and Hume. If I was the only person capable of stopping him, by ending his life, is doing so, then, morally good? According to Hume, yes. No doubt the sentiment of those around me would by positive, as I had just saved their lives, increasing their individual and social utility. According to Kant, technically yes. But his argument would take into consideration the fact that I may have acted out of selfishness (self-preservation) and therefore my action was not universally morally good. This need to separate the categories based on ‘will’ and ‘duty’ is where Kant’s argument wavers. There is no end all be all way of breaking down morality. Subjectivity is a crucial component, and social utility takes this into account, because social

Show More

Related Documents: Kant Vs Hume

Sources of Ethics Essay