Analysis Of David Hume And Kant's Ethics

In every field of study that exists, experts research, test, and reach conclusions; later they often debate, their ideas clashing to see which holds the most merit and which is the best to continue researching. This is the basis of our understandings, turning the personal knowledge of experts into shared knowledge that can be used to better the lives of everyone, and this comes from the disagreements in our Areas of Knowledge (AoKs). Before we delve further, we need to define some terms. Facts are understood as something that is the case, or as information that makes a sentence true. Experts are understood to be people that possess a significant amount of knowledge in an area at a greater level than the general public, and discipline is understood

Hume focused on passions that drive people, not a subservience to regulations. Hume would agree that Kant’s ethics are a form of moral absolutism, which is that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of context. Under Kant’s ethics it follows that there is rule worship, in which people follow rules with no regard to potential consequences. Despite the fact that Hume and Kant agree that the golden rule is a respectable principal, they reach the conclusion from different premises. Kant considers it moral because of the idea that no person is above any other person, which is consistently generalizable. Hume considers it moral because it is emotionally sound to treat others well, as love begets love. Another issue that arises with Kant ethics is when a person confronts a conflict of duty, that is – when two duties present themselves simultaneously, and each is deserving of my attention. Under Hume’s morality of passion, one can simply go with which feels better, but under Kant’s Duty Ethics one would be possibly paralyzed into inaction. Lastly, because Kant believed emotions were too inconsistent to fit into his reliant-on-consistency morality, there is an issue of moral coldness – that is, a focus on reason alone with emotions disregarded. Hume states the exact opposite, that it is the emotions within us that, despite inconsistency, should

The discourse focused on one question: Is creation a viable modern of origins? This directly links to the focus of this essay: that expert disagree despite the same evidence. Part of this comes from confirmation bias, a disregard for facts or ideas that go against one’s own ideation. Ken Ham was guilty of this; he took scientific ideas that only matched his creationist views and distorted them to be portrayed the only correct science. The methods he used, such as coral reef aging, are outdated and have been replaced by better methods, such as radioactive dating. Bill Nye used these more accurate measurements support his argument that the Earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old. Another argument from the creationist side is a distinction between observational and historical science. Essentially, historical science is scientific study in regards to the past, whereas observational science is the scientific research of the present and cannot be applied to the past. Beyond the implication of nigh complete uncertainty of past events and how they transpired, the claim is not even falsifiable. It is impossible to prove that science today is different than past science, thus the idea can be disregarded as any sort of theory. The more rational thought, that science is science whether in the past or present,