Kant vs. Hume on Moral Reasoning - Assignment Example

“Kant vs. Hume on Moral Reasoning” Introduction: The crux of the debate between Kant’s and Hume’s teachings is that there exists a difference of opinion between the two regarding the moral dimensions of their theories. Kant preached the categorical imperative, in which he stated that the principles of Universality and Reversibility (both of which will be discussed ahead in the paper) should guide human reasoning and behavior. On the other hand Hume gave precedence to human feelings over any abstract relations of rules of Universality and Reversibility as the guiding principles of human actions. In Hume’s opinion, what individuals strongly feel about as being good, right and moral is what actually defines what is right and what is wrong, as opposed to them feeling obliged to do something right without their will just because it is thought to be the right thing. If we analyze both these arguments in isolation, they are both valid to an extent. However, from the perspective of morality, Kant’s categorical imperatives formulate a stronger argument than Hume’s teachings. Kant and Hume – Basis of the Conflict: Starting from the basics, Kant’s critique of Hume’s theories has led him to label them as not really moral theories on the grounds that they do not give an individual a sense of direction as to what he actually is supposed (“ought”) to do under a particular situation. If we go a little deeper and start by understanding what a moral theory is supposed to do then we can either justify or nullify Kant’s criticism. Morality, in a very descriptive context refers to a set of rules put forward either by a society, religion or conferred upon an individual upon himself by himself. However, on the normative side, morality is a set of rules that is agreed upon by all individuals unanimously (Gert, 2011)1. Under this definition, we can vividly see that Kant’s criticism is in perfect synchronization with his arguments against Hume’s teachings since the normative definition of morality, is more or less a variant of Kant’s categorical imperatives. If on the other hand, Kant would have based his argument on some grounds other than morality, then it might have been easier to refute his ideology. Kant stresses that human beings are given the status of God’s most supreme creations for their ability to reason. It is this ability to reason which differentiates human beings from animals and other creations of God. A man tries to come to a conclusion after putting some thought into the process and weighing some pros and cons, that is the point of differentiation between a man and the rest of God’s creation. It is this fundamental belief of Kant, on which his theories are based. The point of commonality in his theories is that none of them preach the principle of intuition of basing actions of mere feelings as Hume suggests. Rather all of Kant’s teachings stem from a need of moral duty that we have towards our fellow human beings and exactly how we can do justice to them through the proper procedure of reasoning to come down to our conclusions (Kant & Weigelt, 2007)2. The Concept of “Priori”: The guiding principle of Kant’s theories, upon which he rejected Hume’s theories, was of priori. Priori refers to a concept which basically talks about deductive reasoning. It states that an effect is always preceded by a cause. This is what Kant believed in but was thrown into confusion by Hume’s criticism of the concept. When Hume tried to explain that there exists a possibility of a posteriori, which was the opposite of priori and in effect inductive reasoning. Hume’s argument was that priori requires analytical judgment, which was also agreed upon by Kant, however, Hume believed that certain cause and effect relationships cannot be revealed through synthetic reasoning rather they require analytical reasoning. This meant that no matter how hard a person may try to apply synthetic reasoning to explain the relationship it will fail to reveal it. This came as a blow to Kant and he spent around twelve years of his life trying to reason out the relationship of priori. In this way, Hume challenged the basis of rationalism, since he felt that Priori did not exist from its very foundation and that no cause can explain any effect. Kant sought to explain this by elaborating on synthetic judgment and how it is not based on empirical facts. This continues to take the shape of the categorical imperatives, in which Kant talks about the cause and effect relationship of our thoughts and actions. In the principle of universality, Kant explains that certain actions are universally understood as being wrong and unethical, so a person’s actions must be in accord with what he considers fit to become an international law. Reversibility takes the principle of universality further to state that a person must treat another person in a way that if he were in the other person’s shoes, he would not mind being treated in that particular way. In this way, Kant states that people should be treated as ends and not as mere means to achieve an end. Thus, here again we can see the connection Kant tries to make with the cause and effect relationship (Kant & Gregor, 1998)3. The categorical imperatives give us complete guidelines of moral reasoning, value and good. The categorical imperatives do not only provide us with moral guidelines as to how we need to react in particular situations but these guidelines are in effect based on every individual’s own choice. Kant has left the choice of decision making in the individuals themselves in different situations, all that he has specified is that they must treat others they way they want to be treated. These principles do not restrict human will and desires; rather they just provide them with a guiding path as to how they should act. Hume on Desires Guiding Actions: Hume, on the other hand preaches that human feelings play an important role in the decisions they make and as a matter of fact Hume felt that all decisions should be based on human feelings. For this reason Hume can compare his theory to that of Kant’s and exalt his teachings on the grounds of having the human element more than it is present in Kant’s. What appears to be a human element in Hume’s theories also seems to be the most evident and on the surface facts. It is but natural for human beings to act in a manner that’s in synchrony with their desires, but what sense of direction is there in Hume’s teachings. Therefore, Kant’s argument stands validated. In Hume’s view, human beings are not capable of reasoning out what they want to achieve for themselves, they can only know what they want to achieve and how to get that, therefore Hume feels that human reason cannot tell us the way we need to act. In saying so, Hume once again shatters the basis of Kant’s theories. Hume’s view regarding the correctness of human decisions suggests that moral norms are only applicable to us till they are in line with our own desires. This is indeed a very general view and can be molded or critiqued in many different ways. Under this view point, it seems that there is no value of a moral justification for our actions. Our actions are correct as long as they are in line with what we feel and what delights us (Hume, 1999)4. This shows us that the greatest point of difference that lies between Kant and Hume is in the rationality of our decisions. Where Kant believes in moral absolutism, that there are certain values and actions that are universally thought of as being morally correct and no matter what even if against our desires we must abide by such values and act on them, Hume believe otherwise. Hume feels that anything is right as long as it makes us happy and we feel it’s right. Such subjectivity of moral values makes the point of this debate a little futile. Previously, this article stated that Kant merely provided his followers with directions in which to channelize their thought processes when confronted with situations in which they have to make tough choices, Hume on the other hand it appears left everything on intution and human desires. Therefore, from the above account it seems obvious that Kant’s teachings and the grounds on which his theories are based bear more weight than those of Hume’s. References: Gert, B. (2011, March 14). Definition of Morality. Retrieved August 5, 2011, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ Hume, D. (1999). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding . London: Oxford University Press. Kant, I. t. (2007). The Critique of Pure Reason. United Kingdom: Penguin Books. Kant, I., & Gregor, M. J. (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. London: Cambridge University Press. Read More