e no actions that have no specific causes, and so there are no actions emanating from will that are not caused by prior motives and circumstances, as well as human temperaments. He rejects that man enjoys liberty, therefore, and argues that man instead acts from necessity. As a skeptic, on the other hand, he argues that we must be modest when it comes to making judgments, because of the contradictions inherent in all reasoning of the mind, and when we do speculate on the nature of things, we must strive to stick to the facts and employ such activities on matters that require abstractions of the mind. He extends this skeptical stance to religion. As opposed to adhering to a religion of belief, moreover, he proposed a more natural religion. In matters of morality, moreover, he argues that it is the passions, instinct, and the psychological realities in man rather than rationality that govern the dynamics of human morality. The ultimate ground of his morality is not reason, but something innate in us, a built in moral sense, and that moral sense must have come from God. It is this sense, in the gut or in the human sentiment, that is the true cause of moral virtues in man and not reason (Morris and Brown).
In Kant we have the first synthesis of rationality and of empiricism as championed by Hume. In Kant the fulcrum of the moral philosophy is that man is capable of being autonomous. Human reason is the primary faculty that allows man to discern what is good from what is bad, from what is moral and not moral. He posits that the basis of all natural laws is the capacity of man for understanding, and from human rationality and human understanding flows human beliefs in the Divine, the eternity of souls, our notions of freedom, in other words the way we perceive and structure our experiences all spring from this ability of man to reason and to make sense of the world thus. This is the essence too of the autonomy of man, to be able to discern all this, and that because