Ethics (David Hume and Kant) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Ethics (David Hume and Kant) - Essay Example 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, â€Å"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 â€Å"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. For Hume, virtue is created out of feelings but Cant contests this argument by saying that â€Å"in its Idea there is only one virtue; but in fact there is a multitude of virtues, made up of several different qualities†. 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 conditio ns 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 â€Å"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 ju stified, 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 p