You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Kant vs. Hume on Moral Reasoning
Pages 4 (1004 words)
Student’s Name Professor’s Name Subject Name Date “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.
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. ...
Not exactly what you need?