Reason Vs Hume Essay

Patrick Hannigan

Moral Philosophy

January 2014

Kant’s Reason Vs. Hume’s Desire

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.

Immanuel Kant is a firm believer in the importance “pure” moral philosophy. By “pure”, Kant means the supreme moral principle has to be found using methods of “a priori” moral philosophy, which is grounded on principles that are revealed through operations of reason and are inherent. This is very different from empirical moral philosophy (Hume’s view) because it can indeed show us how we ought to act, not just how we do act. One of Kant’s most distinctive works in ethics was his notion of autonomy. Explicitly, Kant describes autonomy as “the property of the will by which it is a law to itself (independently of any property of the objects volition)” (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)). Kant states any moral agent can be autonomous because it gives itself the moral law (so it is self-legislating) and it can prevent or motivate itself to follow the law. This ensures that the moral law is not based in the person’s feelings or impulses, which Kant calls the “proper self”. Kant assumes all non-human animals are heteronomous (the opposite of autonomous) meaning their wills ...

... middle of paper ...

...rce of all morality seem too lifeless and lacking the human element. Hume’s attempt to display morality as a phenomenon makes more sense to me, since morality has been and will continue to be observed and can be replicated many times. Though I believe Hume’s overall outlook on morality to be more fitting as a whole, there are certainly divisions of Kant’s work I find very sustainable. For instance, Kant’s rationalization of god through the highest good of morality seems plausible, since morality without an obtainable ideal is certainly useless. However, including god in the discussion of morality is difficult due to god not being a naturally occurring sentiment that would affect judgment. Both stances on the subject of morality are very valid as well as very different, but I believe both feelings and reason are necessary to find an accurate moral philosophy model.