Ethical Theories: Kant vs. Hume
Comparison: Kant and Hume
It is interesting to compare Kant’s ethical formalism with Hume’s ethical emotivism. Although they were two Enlightenment thinkers, the differences between them (one German and one English) are notable.
Hume’s Empiricism
Hume’s empiricism led him to believe that reason was not the foundation of morality, as most philosophers had hitherto taken for granted. According to Hume, our rational capacity cannot tell us what is good and bad because “reason is the slave of passions.“ Therefore, reason is not used to determine what we should or should not do. The foundation of morality is feelings. Moral judgments are rooted in the feelings that a certain action causes us.
Kant’s Rationalism
Kant’s theory is opposed to the previous one. He does not deny the fact that man is a rational being who has desires and feelings, but he believes that the great evils of mankind are caused by being guided by impulses and passions, not acting in a rationally self-determined way. Kant’s ethics will be profoundly rational. His ethics are based on the rational dimension of man, regardless of feelings and inclinations. Human progress will be linked to the development of a purely rational ethic.
Reason vs. Feelings
For Hume, reason cannot prevent our behavior. However, moral imperatives, derived from feelings, do not succeed either. Reason can analyze the situation, but the feelings it has caused in us are those that lead us to value it as good or bad. Only when we internalize the event and our hearts react, is there a feeling of pleasure or displeasure.
According to Kant, there is an awareness of moral obligation because sometimes we feel compelled to do something that goes against our wishes. As what we think we should do often does not match what we want to do, the origin of moral obligation cannot be in wishes but must be in reason. Our will, therefore, will be good if it is only influenced by reason, not by desires and passions.
Material vs. Formal Ethics
Following the novel classification of ethical theories by Kant, we can distinguish between material ethics (Hume, for example), those that propose a higher end and tell us what to do to achieve it, and formal ethics (Kant), where what makes an action moral is the way in which it is done. The most important thing is not what you do or the purpose for which you do it, but how you do it.
Utilitarianism vs. Deontology
Hume’s ethics is a utilitarian ethic, where what creates a feeling of acceptance is something useful or pleasant. It is an ethic of consequences, as it believes that an action is good if its consequences are. Against this, Kant proposes an ethic of intentions, in which the will is good when what moves us to act is a good intention, forcing us to act guided by what our reason dictates.
Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives
The moral law must take the form of an imperative. However, Kant distinguishes between hypothetical imperatives, characteristic of material ethics like Hume’s, which command us to do something to achieve an end (in Hume’s case, utility), and the categorical imperative, characteristic of Kant’s formal ethics. The categorical imperative is one whose order is not subject to any order or condition, does not refer to any targets to achieve, and does not say what specific action we should perform, but how to do it. It will be stated as follows:
- “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
- “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
With the first formulation, Kant seeks to show that the moral subject has the will to independently perform a behavior that can be universalized. The second aims to convey that even though a person may be a means for us, they should never be treated solely as a means but also as an end, that is, as a being with dignity and rights to be respected.
A Posteriori vs. A Priori Ethics
Another difference between both authors is that we can consider Hume’s ethics as a posteriori ethics, where principles are based on experience, and individuals’ imperatives, therefore, can never be universal and necessary. However, Kant’s ethics is universal and necessary, regardless of experience, based on reason, which is unique for everyone.
Heteronomous vs. Autonomous Ethics
Hume’s ethics is heteronomous, meaning that moral norms are imposed on us from an instance outside our own reason. Kant’s ethics is autonomous, meaning that moral laws are rooted in reason itself. Thus, each will act as his own reason tells him, without allowing any other to guide their conduct or any other source external to the individual’s reason.
Selfish vs. Disinterested Ethics
Another difference is that Kant describes ethics prior to his as selfish (this includes Hume’s utilitarian ethics) because he who acts on its imperatives does it in exchange for something, in return for the supreme purpose proposed. Kant’s ethics, however, is disinterested as it complies with the moral law out of pure respect for duty, without expecting anything in return. The only morally valid action is what is done out of duty, never contrary to duty or according to duty. The moral value of a person lies in being able to overcome their desires and be able to fulfill their duty.
Skepticism and Agnosticism
Finally, while Hume adopts a skeptical and agnostic stance, neither affirming nor denying the existence of God but denying the possibility of knowing it since experience, limiting our knowledge, has never given us evidence of the existence of the soul or God, in the case of Kant, although also from an agnostic position, bearing in mind the profound religious education received, he will raise the postulates of practical reason: the immortal soul, freedom, and God. A postulate is something whose existence we cannot affirm or know, but we need to believe rationally, as they are the moral foundation of the law.
Kant considers that the soul must be immortal because, in a limited existence, we cannot aspire to supreme virtue. Without freedom, it would be meaningless to speak of moral responsibility. God is considered as the being in whom “being” and “must be” coincide.