What are the ultimate principles of morals for both Hume and Kant - Essay Example

What are the ultimate principles of morals for both Hume and Kant? Immanuel Kant considers old philosophical problems using new methods. Kant defends morality from reduction to self-interest, empirical fact, or feelings (Laursen 18). Rather, he bases his supreme moral principle on reason. Kant attempts to uncover common sense morality’s principles. He goes on to observe that only good will is good sans qualification. Good will is always good in itself and not just for the things that it produces. Will is good if will comes from duty, as well as other moral motives, which do not simply conform to duty. For instance, grocers who give the right change because of fairness, rather than from the fear of being caught, do so from good will. The reasoning goal is not in producing happiness but rather producing will that can be seen to be good in it. The satisfaction of man’s desires, which is happiness, is not determinate enough to use as a workable guide (Laursen 19). Good will cannot act as the complete and sole good, although it is the worthy condition of being happy and the highest good. Complete good can only be goodwill combined with happiness. Rationality possesses its own laws of objectiveness. Because man is rational only partially, he experiences the various laws as constraints and imperatives that he is required to follow (Laursen 20). These imperatives are grounded on the premise that is valid for all rational beings as such. These imperatives, according to Kant, could be hypothetical, i.e. if one wants to get to end E, then he should do A, or categorical, which is he ought to perform A. Ethics that are based on imperatives that are hypothetical are heteronymous because they involve following laws set by another. Categorical imperatives are hard to understand, although their content is clear. The basic imperative of category states that man acts on principle and these principles can be willed on everybody (Laursen 21). Ethics and morals are autonomous if they are based on categorical imperatives because man follows their own laws. Kant’s supreme moral principle is the universal law formula, which contends that man should act on a maxim that they follow to be used as a universal law (Laursen 23). Kant continues by applying his formula to two duties that are perfect and exception-less. These are not making promises with deceit and not committing suicide, as well as two imperfect duties, which to help those who have needs and development of one’s talents. These ideas can be expressed more loosely in two ways. Firstly, it is to treat all humanity, both you and others, not as a means only, but also as an end in itself (Laursen 23). Secondly, man should act as if one’s action maxim would be turned into nature’s universal law. Kant also connects freedom with morality. According to him, to be free means to follow one’s own principles of rationality rather than following our desires only. This means that one should follow their own legislation and act on maxims that they would follow, rather than the universal laws (Laursen 24). Therefore, freedom is morality. So morality and freedom, ultimately, are the same mystery. It is not possible to explain what free will is. It is only possible to assume what it is and reject all objections against it. Man knows that he/she is free through knowledge of his/her duties. Since probably an individual could have acted in a different way, then one is free. In order for man to recognize himself as free, he needs to see himself as being a member to two worlds. These worlds are a higher intelligible world and a sensible world. Acting in a moral way, therefore, has a supreme moral worth since through it, one participates in an existence of a higher order. This can be perceived as the foundation of human dignity as an end to itself (Laursen 24). Hume, on the other hand, contends that reason and moral sense combine to make our moral judgments. He says that moral sense is essential in making a distinction between virtue and vice, although reason and moral sense have a role to play in moral judgment formation (Laursen 67). Reason becomes vital when we are required to make a judgment concerning what is useful; reason can determine why and how something is of use to others and to us. He briefly discusses what judges of morals include in their virtues list and how they make these lists. Hume begins by distinguishing between natural and artificial virtues. According to him, natural virtues are universal and originate in nature. These are inclusive of; decorum, sensitivity to poetry, articulateness, cleanliness, good nature, parental devotion, patience, perseverance, wit and humor, good sense, self-assertiveness, modesty, pride, ambition, courage, industry, frugality, temperance, prudence, equity, clemency, beneficence, charity, fidelity, friendship, gratitude, generosity, compassion, and an elusive quality making one valuable or lovely (Laursen 68). Some virtues could be voluntary, for instance pride while some are involuntary like good sense. Artificial virtues, on the other hand, are dependent on social structures, including fidelity and justice to promises, protection of ambassadors, and respect of boundaries, duties to treaties by sovereign states, modesty and chastity, and subjecting to the laws of nations. He defines these and explains the mode in which they are evident in the world noting that these vary from one society to the next (Laursen 69). Hume continues to explain that reason is not the cause of man’s actions. Rather, morals, passions, or sentiments motivate his /her actions. Hume states that one’s actions are the result of sentiment and utility. It is essential for man to care about what the outcome will be if he/she is to care about the way in which it is achieved. Hume devotes several sections of his work to utility, which he denotes to as being paramount of the four types of morality (Laursen 70). He also addresses himself to benevolence, and the role it plays in morality. In particular, he contends that acts of benevolence are moral and virtuous because they are of use to many others. Hume and Kant’s views of morals and ethics contrast greatly and I prefer Kant’s views. While Hume’s method of philosophy is empirical and experimental, Kant tends to stress on the necessity of basing morality on the principle of priori (Laursen 88). Kant grounds morality on how he conceives reason that, in itself, is practical. Hume views reason as being a slave to passions and says that such feelings as the generosity and benevolence are proper motivations of a moral nature. Kant views the motives of one’s duties, which Hume views as a motive in the form of a fall back and as expressing whether an agent is uniquely committed to morality, which conveys into actions special morals. While Kant and Hume’s morals and ethics stand varies at various points, the two do have some connections with shared assumptions of motivation and morality. Works Cited Laursen, John. The politics of skepticism in the ancients, Montaigne, Hume and Kant. Leiden : Brill, 2012. Print. Read More