Kant vs Hume

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By kms10
Words 426
Pages 2
Scottish skeptic David Hume and German critic Immanuel Kant were both philosophers that attempted to address similar concepts of reason and human nature, albeit in very different ways. Both men, alive and practicing during the 1700s, had a lasting impact on the philosophical community. The two men not only differed personally, but philosophically, addressing issues at very different standpoints.

Immanuel Kant, born in Prussia, was raised by a conservative family and quickly earned a PhD from his local university in Konigsberg. As a private, unmarried teacher, he mainly studied the sciences and is credited with devising the first working Big Bang Theory. Unlike other thinkers of his time, Kant was not skeptical or negative about humankind. Rather, he believed that all moral reasoning was based on rational thought. A rational man would make moral choices; an irrational man would not. This provides every man with an equal opportunity to use reason as moral guidance. Kant was also much more concerned with scientific reasoning and explanations.

David Hume was far different from Kant in almost every way. Unlike Kant, Hume did not achieve a degree; he abandoned a course in law to pursue his philosophical calling. He was an overall skeptic, hesitant to approach huge, overarching ideals and more focused on the effect of memories and emotions. Unlike Kant, he did not believe in reason being rational; rather he believed that humans, though possessing free will, are at the mercy of passions which are mistook for reason. Morals, then, are derived from feelings, not reason. This is the main area of difference between Kant and Hume’s philosophies.

The main difference in Kant and Hume’s arguments was the deciding force behind morality. Kant proposed that reason drove morality; Hume proposed that emotion did. In essence, the two were combating practical thought with…...

Similar Documents

David Hume

...Renaissance to Revolution Term Paper Abbas Ali David Hume and the Fallacy (Philosophy) of Religion David Hume is considered the greatest philosopher Britain has produced and an intellectual hero to many atheists. His arguments against religion are clear, incisive and devastating. However, some people have misconstrued his agnosticism to represent faith and claim that while Hume challenged conventional religion, he himself believed in God. In this paper I will attempt to refute some of these claims by briefly highlighting some of Hume’s most compelling arguments against religion and showing how they leave little room for belief. I will also delve into some of the context surrounding Hume’s work to show how speaking against religion was a dangerous game in those times and restricted Hume’s ability to speak freely. Some of the primary sources used for this paper include Hume’s most famous works on religion, including The Natural History of Religion and Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. Secondary and tertiary sources include scholarly critiques of Hume’s texts as well as reviews and journals interpreting his work one way or another. To start with, lets have a look at an excerpt from, The Natural History of Religion, published in 1757. In the following passage, Hume summarizes his views on religion as “sick men’s dreams”: What a noble privilege is it of human reason to attain the knowledge of the supreme Being; and, from the visible works of nature, be enabled to...

Words: 1858 - Pages: 8

Kant Versus Hume

...Kant VS Hume David Hume works from world to mind, Immanuel Kant from mind to world. Hume, how we experience the world is conditioned by the world. Kant, how we experience the world is conditioned by the mind. Most contemporary philosophers believe that Hume refuted the views of the rationalists before him (Descartes, Hobbes Spinoza, and Leibniz), who all held that there is an element of genuine a priori reasoning in causal inference. According to Hume, however, causal relations are not logically necessary, and hence they cannot be known a priori. To say that even if A caused B, it is not logically impossible to suppose that, given A, B might not have occurred. (De Pierris) So far as reason and logic are concerned, given a particular event, anything may happen next. This is precisely the reason why causal relations cannot be known a priori; in order to determine whether or not a causal relation holds between A and B we must rely on our experience of similar relations. "There are no objects," wrote Hume, "which by the mere survey, without consulting experience; we can determine to be the causes of any other; and no objects, which we can certainly determine in the same manner not to be the causes" (Lorkowski) Hume analyzed the idea of causality by emphasizing the three demands that can be verified through observation. First he argued the aspect of constant conjunction. In this aspect, the cause and effect must be spatially and constantly existent. Secondly, he asserted...

Words: 971 - Pages: 4

Hume

...Bertrand Russell famously summarized Hume's contribution to philosophy, saying that he "developed to its logical conclusion the empiricist philosophy of Locke and Berkeley, and by making it self-consistent made it incredible." Hume is remarkable in that he does not shy away from conclusions that might seem unlikely or unreasonable. Ultimately, he concludes that we have no good reason to believe almost everything we believe about the world, but that this is not such a bad thing. Nature helps us to get by where reason lets us down. Hume is unquestionably an empiricist philosopher, and he strives to bring the rigor of scientific methodology to bear on philosophical reasoning. His distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact is absolutely crucial in this respect. Anything we can say about the world is a matter of fact, and thus can be justified only through experience and can be denied without contradiction. Relations of ideas can teach us about mathematical truths, but cannot, as some rationalist philosophers would have, teach us about the existence of our selves, an external world, or God. If we are left with only matters of fact to get us by in the world, however, we find ourselves greatly limited. How can past experience teach me anything about the future? Even to infer without circularity that future experience will resemble past experience requires some principle that cannot be grounded in past experience. Without that principle, our ability to reason...

Words: 641 - Pages: 3

Kant vs Hume

...Scottish skeptic David Hume and German critic Immanuel Kant were both philosophers that attempted to address similar concepts of reason and human nature, albeit in very different ways. Both men, alive and practicing during the 1700s, had a lasting impact on the philosophical community. The two men not only differed personally, but philosophically, addressing issues at very different standpoints. Immanuel Kant, born in Prussia, was raised by a conservative family and quickly earned a PhD from his local university in Konigsberg. As a private, unmarried teacher, he mainly studied the sciences and is credited with devising the first working Big Bang Theory. Unlike other thinkers of his time, Kant was not skeptical or negative about humankind. Rather, he believed that all moral reasoning was based on rational thought. A rational man would make moral choices; an irrational man would not. This provides every man with an equal opportunity to use reason as moral guidance. Kant was also much more concerned with scientific reasoning and explanations. David Hume was far different from Kant in almost every way. Unlike Kant, Hume did not achieve a degree; he abandoned a course in law to pursue his philosophical calling. He was an overall skeptic, hesitant to approach huge, overarching ideals and more focused on the effect of memories and emotions. Unlike Kant, he did not believe in reason being rational; rather he believed that humans, though possessing free will, are at the mercy...

Words: 426 - Pages: 2

Kant

...The moral act of human beings respecting one another has been for many years generalized as persons treating each other the way they would want to be treated which is known as the “Golden Rule”. In this article respect with regards to Kant’s theory takes respect from a casual exchange such as a polite “ excuse me” or “ thank you” to the very intents of the heart of persons in any exchange. The core argument in this case is the subject matter of whether or not companies treat their employees as a means to their end or if companies treat employees as an end in and of themselves. Most business’s look at their employees as resources used to accomplish task needed to generate revenues for the company‘s stockholders. In order to understand the issue Kantians have with this business viewpoint one must first understand what Kant considers respect. According to Kant human beings have dignity which cannot be bought. He also believes that human beings are not exchangeable. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative says “Act so that you treat humanity whether, in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. (Norman E. Bowie “Business Ethics” pg. 67-68) His views regarding human dignity poses a threat to the way businesses operate because from a business standpoint, machinery and humans are one in the same and whichever can meet the objectives of the company more efficiently the company will choose. In this article, Bowie brought...

Words: 390 - Pages: 2

Kant

...November 7, 2013 PHI 105 Reading Response #4 Kant In Immanuel Kant’s The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, deontological or the right/logical thing to do is laid out through different categorical imperatives. Kant believes logically there is always a right thing to do. There are obligations that must be done without looking at consequences and only looking at that specific moment in time to decide whether or not good motivations are being practiced. I think that acting in the right way at one moment in time is difficult to achieve without looking at consequences, the end result should be taken into account otherwise people could be making vital mistakes in their life. Kant states that every person has a duty and that your responsibilities cannot look at the consequences, you must only act on the right thing to do first. In class we discussed the idea of euthanasia, for example if someone asks you to mercy kill them then technically that would be your new duty, at least in the eyes of Kant. You cannot think whether or not this will ease them of their pain and end their life, this would be looking at the consequences. According to Kant, if someone asks you to do something and you agree to it that is now something you must uphold to. This is clearly an example of not looking at the consequences, but I think the end result should be taken into account here. Living in that moment and performing mercy killing would have a terrible end result, there are so many other...

Words: 599 - Pages: 3

Abortion Kant vs. Utilitarians

...Abortion Abortion is defined as an early termination of a pregnancy, willingly. It is one of the most controversial issues that is brought up because there are so many different views. This ethical issue today is usually split in two groups, one of these views being pro-choice, giving the option to have an abortion to the family of the fetus. The other main view today is pro-life, which states under no circumstance may a life be taken away. There are many concerns with abortion, the biggest being is the fetus an actual person yet? Many of us will never know the answer to that question. Two views I will go deeper into is the view of Immanuel Kant and the view of a Utilitarian. Immanuel Kant is a firm believer that every person has rights and that no one has the right to infringe on them. To Kant all actions should be done with doing the right thing in mind. The only problem with that is what is right to him is not necessarily correct to somebody else. Kant would believe that under no circumstance would an abortion be justifiable because it would be murder to him, tying back to the idea that no person has the right to interfere with another person’s right to life. Kant would believe it does not matter the way the women got impregnated, it is irrelevant. In other words everything Kant believed involved “Human Worth”. Killing a fetus would be destroying “worth” which goes against everything Kant stood for. His view would be that the fetus was brought into this world...

Words: 700 - Pages: 3

Kant

...Kant’s moral argument focuses on the notion that God must exist to provide structure to the moral universe. Technically he did not believe that is was possible to prove the existence of God through rational or empirical means. It is important to outline two key ideas before explaining the details of the moral argument. These ideas centre around his assumptions of the universe: that the universe was fair; and that the world around us is fundamentally rational. He begins with the unspoken assumption that the world is fair, owing to the dominance of the enlightenment belief that the universe was fundamentally knowable through reason. It is important to note that Kant began a new way of looking at knowledge. He believed that we could know the world through reason in a prior synthetic way. This was a complete change from how the world had been view previously and was known as Kant’s Copernican revolution. In essence Kant believed in two separate worlds of knowledge: noumenal and the phenomenal worlds. The noumenal world is the world as it truly is without being observed. It is fundamentally unknowable because the act of observation changes the very thing that we observe. It is as though human beings have a specific set of spectacles that cannot be taken off and like the proverbial rose tinted ones they change our perception of the world around us. This personalised view of the universe is the phenomenal world. However, what is key to explaining Kant’s moral argument is the fact...

Words: 2616 - Pages: 11

John Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant

...John Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are philosophers who addressed the issues of morality in terms of how moral customs are formed. Immanuel Kant presented one perspective in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that is founded on his belief that the worth of man is inherent in his skill to reason. John Stuart Mill holds another belief as presented in the book, Utilitarianism, which is seemingly conflicting with the thoughts of Kant. What is most unique about the ethics of morality is the idea of responsibilities to particular individuals. According to both Mill and Kant, moral obligations are not fundamentally particularistic because they are rooted in universal moral principles. Both philosophers have made great impacts in their niche areas in the field. An analysis of their theories may help develop a better understanding of them and their theories. Mill holds an empiricist theory while Kant holds a rationalist theory. Kant explains morality through forms that he believes are essential to free and sensible judgment. Mill’s utilitarian...

Words: 2175 - Pages: 9

Kant

...Freedom to Kant did not consist in not being bound by law, but more so by laws that one creates for him or herself. This is known as autonomy, which can be defined as how people self-govern themselves. In the end, being free really consists of a person doing whatever it is that the person wants to do based on his or her own choices for oneself. While being autonomous is the positive way to be free, the negative way to be free consists of following rules of a source outside of oneself. It cannot be considered “freedom” if someone else is making the rules for you. A state with a government gives its people this sense of “freedom” by binding its citizens with laws that are created and ratified by representatives that are elected so that the people feel like the rules made are in some sort of way made by them. In this case, the people oblige to all the laws because they think they are right when the officials voted into office come up with them, even if the people do not know all the details, benefits, or even the negative effects of the laws. In a real sense of freedom, not only would the elected politicians have a say, but the people would have a major say as well. People should be able to express themselves, especially in the case of creating laws in which they are to abide by. Most people may start out in the negative sense of freedom then soon convert into the positive sense when they realize that they are humans with the ability to make their own decisions. In the...

Words: 1102 - Pages: 5

V vs. Kant

...Sussman 1 Adam Sussman HZT4U Ms. Efimov May 25, 2014 V for Vendetta Reflection Throughout the film V for Vendetta, V shows the audience his cleaver and insightful ways on how he plans to heal the damaged society. As V takes on the totalitarianism society run by the British Government, he displays to Kant’s theories that he is the opposite. Although his morals might be in the right place, he continuously uses others to meet the ends of his own means, which directly goes against Kant’s categorical imperative. Along with this, V’s revenge seeking mission goes against another maxim Kant put on his categorical imperative. This is the ‘universality’ maxim. If everyone were doing what V was doing the entire time, many more people would have been killed as well as they are would be no conflict in the first place. What the ‘party’ or the government of Great Britain has been doing the entire time would have never have occurred if they were all fighting the party like V was. V goes against every bit of Kant’s categorical imperative and justifies his own ends through other peoples will. V doesn’t force anyone to do anything in V for Vendetta but rather offers him or her a question of joining or opposing his ways. Sussman 2 As the film progresses, V just shows us how much he actually opposes the guidelines of Kant’s first maxim in his theory of the categorical imperative. The first maxim being universality, V shows the audience that he is the only one who can be doing this and no one else...

Words: 1112 - Pages: 5

Hume

...Q. Explain Humes’ criticisms of the cosmological argument (25 marks) The cosmological argument is based on the principle of causation. In particular, it is put forward that any existent thing must have a cause or reason for its existence and that there cannot be more in the effect than there is in the cause. Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues. There are three main critiques that Hume makes of the argument. Firstly, he has general concerns about the way it is structured, and believes that this structure is fallacious. Secondly, he has more specific concerns related to causation and finally he raises challenges to do with the concepts of contingency and necessity. Hume’s challenges to the structure of the cosmological argument directly question the validity of the assumption that existent things need causes or reasons for their existence. Hume says that just because each of the elements of the ‘chain’ has a cause, it doesn’t follow that the chain itself needs a cause. He gives the example of a collection of twenty particles – if an explanation is found for each particle individually he says it would be wrong to then seek an explanation for the whole collection, because you have already explained it by explaining each particle. This is called the fallacy of composition, and was later simply put by Russell that just because every man has a mother, it doesn’t mean that there is a mother of the human race. Hume also has some challenges to the notion of...

Words: 733 - Pages: 3

Kant vs Nietzsche Philosophy Paper

...Kant vs. Nietzsche One of the most fundamental questions in philosophy is what the most important thing we are looking for is and what effects it has on our lives. There are different views related to such a fundamental question. The treatment of people is the question of morality. We are going to take a look at positions taken by great German philosophers Kant and Nietzsche on the question of morality and the way people should be treated, based on their arguments presented in theories developed by them. Kant’s philosophy is based on the assumption that there is a metaphysical dimension which implies that there are some absolute things that do exist outside of human beings and which are the ends in themselves (not intended to promote an achievement of any other end). Kant calls these abstract absolute things the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative in his view is something that is not dependent on anything else and, therefore, should be something that we should strive for. The concept of the categorical imperative is important because we can use it to determine whether our actions are being moral through the application of the universal law, which implies the categorical imperative. The universal law says that we should never act except in such a way that we can also will that our maxim should become a universal law. The whole system of Kant’s morality is based on the assumption that there is an autonomous will, which is the source of moral action and...

Words: 2047 - Pages: 9

Kant

...Amy Vu Philosophy 205 May 14, 2016 Essay Assignment Kant Kant was one of the most influential philosophers in Western philosophy. His works contributed in whether or not we call any philosophy based on experience empirical, if we call it pure philosophy if it sets its principles based on priori principles, or any form of pure philosophy that is formal, logic. However, if logic were known to be only in specific objects of understanding this pure philosophy would be called metaphysics. He based a large amount of his writing on the question, “What can we know?” and through that, he stated, “our knowledge is constrained to mathematics and the science of the natural empirical world. It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics” (McCormick). He believes that the mind is limiting us to only the empirical realm of space and time. In Kant’s view in ethnics, he states that the sole reason that gives the action moral worth is not actually the outcome once achieved but it is the motive behind the action. He argues that the mind is a blank slate that we would write our experience by experiencing the empirical world. That motive which causes that action arises from the universal principles of reason. Kant claims that only actins done from duty have moral worth, which is true because in his writings, morality is something that only rational beings are able to preform these principles because they are rational. “Everything in...

Words: 1733 - Pages: 7

Church vs Kant on Refugee Crisis

...HRE M01 Valentina Sanchez April 4th, 2016 Church and Kant on Refugee Crisis Catholic teachings are known to bring forth the concept of loving one another and helping those in need. These teachings are evident in the pastoral letter that has been released recently. The letter states that “Pope Francis has repeatedly reminded us of [the refuges] need for help, and appealed to the world not to turn our hearts away when homeless masses seek shelter, protection and a better life,” this letter highlights the fact that as a Catholic one has the duty to help others and to fulfill those duties one must follow the word of God. The Catholic teachings are known amongst many people and can also resemble that of other teachings. The crisis that is currently occurring has caused many to lose everything, and they are seeking help and a better life in other countries. Welcoming refugees with open arms bring one closer to God since one would be following some of the most important Catholic teaching which is treating everyone with dignity, even though the immigration policies have had to progress over time they are at a point now that will be able to help those in need. . The Ethical message of helping ones neighbor brought forth by the Article is similar to that of Kant’s Golden Rule which teaches that you must do unto others as you want done to you, truly representing the views of Catholicism and highlighting how important it is to love thy neighbor and how this will play a...

Words: 1446 - Pages: 6