On Morality and Ethics: Views of David Hume and Immanuel Kant - Research Paper Example

?On Morality and Ethics: Views of David Hume and Immanuel Kant Introduction Today’s world is beset with myriad of issues and problems that only boil down to defining what is good and what is bad, what is moral and what is immoral. Since the time of Plato, the study of moral philosophy and ethics has never been greatly relevant and useful to humanity especially in an era of widespread conflict and misunderstanding. Regrettably, to say that the discipline has a vast scope is an understatement. Apart from examining the tenets of the early classical Greek thinkers, however, no one can proceed to understand morality and ethics without getting to know David Hume and Immanuel Kant and their respective ‘philosophies.’ In this essay, the writer attempts to outline their basic teachings and demonstrate their views on morality and ethics. By comparing and contrasting their own schools of thought and lines of argumentation, the paper provides an insight into the considerable similarities and to a larger extent differences between two of the most revered Western philosophers’ moral and ethical systems. The Gospel according to Hume Scottish genius David Hume (1711-1776), one of the pillars of Naturalism, Empiricism, Skepticism, Utilitarianism and Classical Liberalism, fostered the idea of ‘science of man,’ which seeks to give practical importance on the psychological grounds of human nature. A staunch opponent to Rationalism, he declared that desire rather than reason determines human action. In his Treatise of Human Nature (1739), he stated that ‘reason is only a slave to the passions’ (Schmidt 39). A self-confessed atheist, Hume concluded that since there is neither a God nor any independent moral truths, then morality should be anchored on the strong power of human nature. This, according to him, should be the basis for all human motivations and actions. For him, reason cannot govern human morality as sentiments and emotions are more powerful than the former. The input of passions is so strong that reason could hardly repress. Thus, through an understanding of human passion, one can have correct perspectives on morality and ethics (Penelhum and Hume 58). For Hume, the human sentiment -- intuition, feelings and spirit -- should be the basis of establishing moral and ethical standards due to its most primal function in the human cognition. Reason, consistent with Hume's declarations, is only the by-product of what the human person feels and experiences. Essentially, for Hume, morality would either produce or prevent action among people (Schmidt 45). Kant’s Doctrine Russian academic Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is best remembered for his Transcendental Idealism which posited that knowledge is not materially real but merely the result of an a priori condition of the human mind. In contrast with Hume’s theory on Sentimentalism, Kant gave much weight and magnitude to human reason than emotion. According to him, reason provides categorical obligations to the human being which are independent from any form of desire and aspiration (Pasternack 16). In his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Kant, however, noted of a term ‘empty thinking,’ which he elucidated as the consequences of thoughts without contents and discernment without concepts. In this postulation, Kant bravely pronounced the limits of knowledge. For him, people can only know the world of objects that appear within the context of experience (phenomena). Meanwhile, for things that the human being cannot possibly have knowledge about, Kant employed the term noumena. As a psychological egoist, Kant defines happiness as the state of attaining the highest levels of self-regard, which he called Selbstsucht (Johanson 26). In addition, Kant’s phenomenological treatise also focused on the notion of maxim, which is fundamentally dichotomous. As his standpoint on ethics, Kant proffered the maxim-pair of helping others and not helping others. According to him, the human experience is always governed by this binary division. Another critical aspect of Kant’s moral philosophy is the construct termed ‘respect,’ which guides human interaction with himself or herself, to society and to the universe (Scruton 58). Freedom of the Will Hume upheld that there is always a cause and a necessity for all human actions. Hence, based on this argument, they serve as the backbone of freewill. He also purported that all of humankind, whether leaned or ignorant, perpetually have liberty of action that originates from the dictates of their soul (Penelhum and Hume 109). Surprisingly, Kant shared this view of Hume. He saw that causal necessity controls all human actions and events, and that human beings are free. Yet, he contended with Hume on the area that, as he alleged, human beings do not have the freedom of choice. Accordingly, causes, effects and explanations of human action should not only be viewed from a natural tendency, instead they should be examined on a degree of freedom that governs every single move. His moral philosophy on Autonomy speaks volumes of this contention that revolves around freedom and determinism. For Kant, as members of the noumenal world, people always have the freedom of action and the liberty of expression. He stressed the point that imputing blame on others cannot be acceptable because rational beings are free to act rightly regardless of the natural causes and necessities they are confronted with Ina word, the person is responsible for his actions and the events around him (Ward 28). On Virtue Because morality is grounded on sentiment, Hume then continued to argue that virtue is the mental action or quality that has a pleasing effect on human emotion, therefore, it is commendable. He furthered that basically virtue is approved not only by one self but also by whole society. Hume enumerated natural virtues as prudence, temperance, industry, humanity and enterprise. While in his An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), he emphasized justice, honor, loyalty, chastity, charity and moderation as instantaneously agreeable to oneself and to others. Other virtues such as benevolence, cheerfulness, tranquility and delicacy of taste are considered inherently approved by oneself. These virtues or traits, for Hume, are all largely dependent upon one’s sympathy (Radcliffe 298). On the other hand, Kant’s definition of virtue is different. He believed that the said quality only occurs when a person on unholy volition will express the highest commitment or return to morality. In a word, Kant's idea of virtue is the most difficult to achieve. Continual struggle to arrive at a virtuous state should be a motivating factor for people. For Kant, cultivation of virtue should first be done before any one can master it. The formulation of moral laws is required in order for people to know what virtue is all about and what norms of conduct to perform (Ward 59). Furthermore, Kant named virtues as ‘directly ethical duties’ due to the fact that they should be continually observed and practiced. Self-knowledge, compassion, beneficence and appreciation of beauty are the important virtues for mankind, according to him. The opposite of virtue, based on Kant’s teachings, is vice. He identified suicide, gluttony, drunkenness, dishonesty, avarice and sexual deviancy as the items in this category. Other acts that are not virtuous are arrogance, malice, envy and ingratitude (Ward 62). However, both agreed that for people to live a good life, they must live in accordance with the universally accepted principles of morality and ethics. Aesthetics and Ideals of Beauty In his treatise Of the Standard of Taste (1757), Hume referred to beauty and art as the ‘pleasures of the human imagination.’ Acknowledging that they are only the merchandise of sensory pleasure, he accentuated the lofty ideal of beauty as a product of cognitive satisfaction. In this case, Hume did not only utilize the power of emotions in criticizing a piece of art, but also employed the operation of imagination. According to him, value in things cannot be judged according to anything but human nature. He called those gifted people who have a certain level of ‘taste’ when they would learn the truest meaning of aesthetic and moral beauty, which are not based on subjectivism and idiosyncratic preferences. Meanwhile, Hume used the terminologies approbation and disapprobation in reference to beauty. Approbation, a particular sense of pleasure, is characterized by the feelings of approval, liking and affection. In contrast, disapprobation is about disapproval, dislike and contempt. According to him, an ugly object or a vicious act generates the feelings of disgust and deprecation (Townsend 137). Likewise, Kant’s discussion on the subjective nature of aesthetic qualities and experiences can be gleaned from his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (1764). Beauty, for Kant, is not a piece of work or a natural phenomenon but a conscious pleasure of the mind. He somehow acquiesced with Hume in the idea that the judgment of beauty is purely aesthetical in nature: one that uses reason and emotion. Common sense, which he deemed valid, is also another aspect in his explanation of the philosophy of art. Ultimately, the universal validity of beauty, for Kant, is determined using both reason and sentiment (Kirwan 11). Political Philosophies There is only a thin line that divides ethics and politics. Generally, people would think nowadays that politicians do not have ethics and it would be very hard to survive politics if these people would always revisit their morals; or practically one cannot be a politician and a moralist at the same time (Gutmann and Thompson 22). It is with this premise that a glance at the political philosophies of Hume and Kant could hardly remain unnoticed. Both a ‘conservative’ and a ‘liberal,’ Hume demonstrated the importance of the rule of law and the moderation in politics. In his essays, he manifested a sense of abhorrence towards overzealousness and factionalism of politicians that according to him would be detrimental to national stability. Whatever the form of government, Hume believed that a just system of laws would provide peace and harmony among people. A balance between the citizens’ demands for freedom and the strong authority of the government should always be ensured (Radcliffe 350). In his Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795), nonetheless, Kant listed several means to end conflicts and wars and create lasting peace, where secret treatises, standing armies, interference from another sovereign state and acts of hostility during war were banned. He contested that the best form of government is a constitutional republic, in which the people’s power should be greater than that of the government. Avid about his objection against direct democracy (which he called despotism), Kant despised the ‘rule of majority’ as it poses threat to individual liberty. As the three forms of government such as democracy, aristocracy and monarchy were the only choices during his time, Kant thought that the most ideal form is the combination of the three (Ellis 48). On God and Religion Hume acknowledged the immateriality and immorality of the soul and the nonessentiality of religion. In the rather heretic opus An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), he cited that there were no empirical bases for believing in a divine providence or in miracles. The establishment of religion, for Hume, only entailed conflict between the notion of God’s omniscience and mankind’s moral responsibility. Morality can stand without religion, and man can be good without even believing in a God -- that is the firm belief of this freethinker. Also a historian, Hume evidenced this claim by providing examples of Christianity’s pernicious acts throughout history (Radcliffe 312). The origin of religion, based on Hume’s views, is human being’s ignorance of the unseen powers that tremendously affect their lives, their aspirations, their fears and other imaginings that surface from that tendency. His secular theory of virtue and ethics is independent from that of any divine imperative and theological dogma (315). Conversely, Kant is a believer of God. A moral theist, he refuted that once human beings begin to appreciate the limits knowledge and understanding, they will witness a metaphysical manifestation of God’s existence. This, to entirely know God is impossible. Some of Kant's major works also delved into the practices of organized religion that he observed to be at time counterfeit service to God. Recognizing the dominance of Christianity over other ecclesiastical creeds, Kant highlighted the need for ethico-religious communities for the moral progress of individuals and societies (Ward 89). Hume’s Influence on Kant History can tell that during Kant’s time, Russian and German scholars study the works of the English authors, apart from their adoration for the classics. Thus, it can be inferred that Kant must have read the timeless and universal masterpieces of Hume. Nevertheless, it was Kant who confessed that the doubting position set forth by Hume challenged him and awakened his ‘dogmatic dormancy.’ It can be noted that even though there are a number of contradictions between both philosophers’ view, Kant’s ideas seem to agree if not reflect Hume’s. The independence of morality and ethics from religion is one great aspect where Kant observed Hume’s philosophical tenets. Both of them recognized the corruption of morals (fanaticism and superstition) within religious circles and acknowledged that religion cannot impose moral standards; instead it is the human person who fashions such ethical codes that are good for himself and for society. As to aesthetics, both knew the significance of the emotive domain in seeing the value of beauty of a certain object. While Kant espoused strong conjecture on the role of reason in the entirety of human experience, he otherwise admitted that in the case of judging what is beautiful and what is not beautiful, humankind is always predisposed to follow the longings of his or heart and soul. Irrefutably, the most ideal form of anything for Kant, which is the sublime, precipitates from what is perceived. Even though the state of being sublime is indescribable as it is ‘boundless,’ one is still taken aback to Hume’s ideology of empiricism, which is all about observation or perception. Conclusion The teachings of Hume and Kant provide a perfect understanding to morality and ethics, which are especially necessitated in this age and time of constant bickerings that are, more often than not, grounded on ethical and moral consideration. Both the church and the government are always confounded by such philosophical and practical questions. That is why examining the works of Hume and Kant will serve much advantage to gain profound wisdom on today’s world never-ending bafflement. While Hume’s moral philosophy is based on empiricism, Kant’s centers on the a priori principles of reason and logic. Hume emphasized the power of sentiment or passion over reason. Yet, Kant upheld reason to explain human action. Though there are many significant contradictions between the two philosophers’ moral and ethical doctrines, there still remain some valuable similarities. This is particularly evident from their standpoints on aesthetics, where both of them acknowledged that subjectivity cannot be avoided when judging an object if it is beautiful or not. Both believed that human emotion always govern the conception of beauty. As regard to which moral philosophy and ethical codes are better than the other, this author is still not in the position to decide as this treatise is nevertheless inadequate to encompass all of their teachings and assumptions. Rest assured, by continued study and patient examination of their works, one cannot only gain philosophical perspectives but also can attain a certain degree of understanding, and hopefully a resolution, to the many an event and to the issues that the world and its people are faced with depressingly. Works Cited Ellis, Elizabeth. Kant's Politics: Provisional Theory for an Uncertain World. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2005. Print. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments. Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth, 2006. Print. Johanson, Ingvar. “Hume, Kant and the Search for a Modern Moral Philosophy.” Philosophia 27.3-4 (1999): 5-43. Print. Kirwan, James. The Aesthetic in Kant: A Critique. London: Continuum International, 2006. Print. Pasternack, Lawrence. Immanuel Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals in Focus. London: Routledge, 2002. Print. Penelhum, Terence, and David Hume. David Hume: An Introduction to His Philosophical System. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UP, 1992. Print. Radcliffe, Elizabeth S. A Companion to Hume. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2010. Print. Schmidt, Claudia M. David Hume: Reason in History. University park, PA: Penn State UP, 2004. Print. Scruton, Roger. Kant: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print. Townsend, Dabney. Hume’s Aesthetic Theory: Sentiment and Taste in the History of Aesthetics. London: Routledge, 2002. Print. Ward, Andrew. Kant: The Three Critiques. Cambridge: Polity, 2006. Print. Read More