Ethics (David Hume and Kant) - Essay Example

? Kant stands for moral principles and human rationality above human emotional responses while Hume theorizes that what we need is a “livable ethics”which is honest to human feelings rather than bases itself on some abstract moral principle which has no connection to human nature (Kant, Hume). But what Kant professes is a secular and universal kind of morality while Hume's argument is highly subjective and could be very problematic in its applications. Hume has observed that it is our modern philosophers who define morality on pure reason and in contrast to that our ancient thinkers have considered “morals as deriving their existence from taste and sentiment” (2). Hume also sides with the prepositions of the ancient philosophers but fails to substantiate his claim in a way that appeals to human logic. Instead wherever Hume tries to anchor his definition of morals in human sentiments, he is seen to stray away into pure rhetoric. For example, Hume has said, “what is honourable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it” (4). In contrast to this he (Hume) claims that “what is intelligible, what is evident, what is probable, what is true procures only the cool assent of the understanding; and gratifying a speculative curiosity, puts an end to our researches” (4) These are not propositions supported by reason but only statements which have a subjective quality. Thus to question the role of reason, Hume is compelled to use arguments which themselves are based on reason and this could be considered as the greatest disadvantage of Hume while proving his theory. Kant adheres to an a priori moral principle based on pure reason while Hume derives his principle from a posteriori elements such as experience and observation (Kant, 387-92, Hume, 65-67). For Hume, virtue is created out of feelings but Cant contests this argument by saying that “in its Idea there is only one virtue; but in fact there is a multitude of virtues, made up of several different qualities” (Hume, 135; Cant, 447). In this manner, Kant is able to define the boundaries of his principle into a unified theory while Hume, by stressing upon experience, falls pray to a multitude of variations of virtue. Such kind of variations by which virtue as a moral value looses its very sense of purpose. To show the universality of his theory of reason, Kant has made a differentiation between a maxim and a moral law: A maxim is a subjective principle of acting, and must be distinguished from the objective principle, namely, the practical law. The former contains the practical rule determined by reason conformably with the conditions of the subject (often his ignorance or also his inclinations), and is therefore the principle in accordance with which the subject acts; but the law is the objective principle valid for every rational being, and the principle in accordance with which he ought to act, i.e.; an imperative (31). Here, it can be seen that what derives from Hume's theory are mere maxims which depends on the “conditions of the subject” while what Kant prescribes is beyond that. For example, if a person feels that she needs to steal because she has nothing to eat, and she is poor owing to no fault of hers, and also she sees that many others have more than what they need, then, according to Hume, her sentiment is not morally invalid. But Kant, by putting before us the universal moral principle that stealing is evil, in all circumstances, reveals a more solid ground. The danger of stealing, in this instance could be that though stealing of food by a person who has nothing to eat is somewhat justified, such an act may serve as a justification for more selfish and evil kinds of stealing. Here, the necessity for a universal principle rather than a maxim is very evident. It is based on a unique concept of freedom that Kant argues for a universal moral principle. For him, freedom is the ability to follow that universal moral principle which is inherent to humans rather than being influenced by the external elements, that is, emotions caused by external agents like revenge or desire (44). Kant clarifies his concept of freedom by observing that “autonomy of the will is the property that the will has of being a law to itself ” (44). In this manner, Kant has defined moral principles as nothing but a trait of human nature which Hume fails to understand. This is why Hume goes on talking about human nature as if a universal moral principle is something imported into human society from some other planet. But by linking freedom to will and will to moral principles, Kant has revealed a crucial link between reason and human experience. And he has also shown that it is from the universal that the specific is derived. And Kant has given feelings a place below reason, only as an element of moral motivation, and has clarified this connection by saying that: In order for a sensibly affected rational being to will that for which reason alone prescribes the ‘ought,’ it is admittedly required that his reason have the capacity to induce a feeling of pleasure or of delight in the fulfillment of duty, and thus there is required a causality of reason to determine sensibility in conformity with its principles” (460). For Hume, rational thought is a quality separate from human existence, which is nothing but a reductionist position that acknowledges only experience as a human trait. But for Kant, both emotions and rationality co-exist as two sides of human nature and hence what he professes is more comprehensive and true to human nature itself. Another problem with Hume is that he strictly compartmentalizes reason and feeling. This is evident when he (Hume) stated, “the distinct boundaries and offices of reason and of taste are easily ascertained” (135). But Kant has never tried to made such a solid differentiation and this position is more close to the complexities of human nature. This is why Kant has pointed out, “the pure thought of duty, and in general of the moral law, ...has by way of reason alone ...an influence on the human heart so much more powerful than all other incentives” (22). Here, it is reason that leads to a feeling and not vice versa. This position is justified when we look into the simple fact that even a sense of injustice or a sense of revenge is induced inside a person's mind as a result of a reasoning that she carries out inside the mind that leads to make her believe that she has been wronged. Without this kind of reasoning, only the sensual pleasures and pain exist. Kant's theory has been more aware of the existence of humans as a collective rather than lonely individuals when he said that actions to achieve happiness “can also be extremely bad and hurtful ... power, wealth, honour, even health and that complete well-being and contentment with one's state which goes by the name of 'happiness.'” (61). But according to Hume's theory, there can be no restriction on individual happiness even if it is going to hurt some one else or the whole society. Though Hume has used abstract terms such as “happiness of mankind” and “happiness of society”, to compensate this drawback, such terminology does not reflect a practical act in the society (54, 138). Such terminologies only circumvent the responsibility of explaining the selfish acts of individuals, which are carried out in the name of happiness. While arguing that it is emotions rather than reason that creates virtue, Hume forgets that the same emotions are capable of creating the opposite of virtue as well (Hume, 67). But in Kant's argument, by separating virtue from human character, it is imparted an objective value which will exist in all circumstances. But Hume has said that “virtue, placed at such a distance, is like a fixed star, which, though to the eye of reason, it may appear as luminous as the sun in his meridian, is so infinitely removed as to affect the senses, neither with light nor heat” (66). So Hume has proposed a different kind of virtue which is derived from human experience (66). But Kant views virtue as something that needs “self mastery” and also what is imparted to us through moral law obeying which we feel self dignity (449, 454). In this way, Kant has rescued moral principles from the fluctuations of human nature and put them as universals. Hume has said also that “ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties” (134). But as Kant has observed that it is the “incentives” given for good action and the punishment given for bad action that prompt humans to “act rightly” (67). And these incentives and punishments are based on the moral principles derived from reason. Given the complexities of human character, the incentive-punishment explanation is more appealing to common sense. Also this is true, when we consider the fact that all the periods of lawlessness in history had only violence and chaos associated with them. Hume's argument that in a society where all human needs, both physical and mental, are met with, there will be no need of justice as a virtue, is also faulty (15-16). In this argument, human greed, selfishness or jealousy is not accounted for. But when Kant defines the universal principle of justice as “any action ...(that)... can co- exist with everyone's freedom of action in accordance with a universal law,” there is no need to correlate this proposition with evils of human nature like selfishness and greed (230). For Kant, any action to be moral, it necessarily needs to be universal (387-92). This is to say that morality cannot be subjective at all, and cannot be applicable only for certain individuals or societies (389-90). But according to Hume's theory, it is what is “natural” that commands more value than the “universal” (87). But this is argued with the weak presumption that “no man is absolutely indifferent to the happiness and misery of others” (54) It is also further stated that a generalization in this regard is possible only to the extent of attesting this human character (54). Here, it can be seen that the basis of morality is delineated in very vague terms and only in degrees, in Hume's theory. But for Kant, there is a stronger basis and a wider framework to locate morality. Works Cited Hume, David, “An Inquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals”, New York: Cosimo Inc., 2006. Print. Kant, “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Print. Read More