Hume vs. Kant: Similarities and Differences
Hume vs. Kant: Similarities and Differences
Compare Hume and Kant: Similarities: 1. Both distance themselves from moral relativism and bet on the existence of a universal moral and social supra. 1.1 Hume argues that the moral feelings or humanity – at least the primary or fundamental – are common to all men and manifest the same way to the perception of those actions or qualities. 1.2. Kant, as the rationalist, believes it is inherent in human reason – practical reason – to distinguish between good and evil. We all have access to a moral law – consciousness – universal and formal – made by Kant in the categorical imperative – that tells you how you should act in all situations, so you should always think you want to rule that the act could become a universal law and you should always treat people – including your own – as if they were an end in itself and not merely as means to something else.
Differences: For Hume, morality can not be based on reason – rejects the existence of a practical reason, but in feeling. Hume argues that theoretical reason can not ignore the data sensitive or pretend to go beyond the data if you do not get lost in pointless rambling and contradictory. But Kant believes that the case with the practical use we make of the reason for making moral decisions. The theoretical use of reason tells us how things are, the practical use how to be human behavior. 2 … Hume does depend on the morale of our passions and biases, to Kant’s formal ethics and ignores our wishes. Kant believes that only moral – ethics of intention – to act freely, out of respect for moral law and not by desire or inclination, for profit or satisfaction, likely action. 3. In conclusion, the ethics of Hume’s empiricism and simply describe what we do, that of Kant, to be rational and ethical, highlights what we do.
Comparison
We may establish similarities and differences with Kant. Let’s start with the common ideas: “For both the story has a dialectical structure. Kant fails to formulate the terms of thesis, antithesis and synthesis (which do appear in Marx), but he defends, that the story suffers apparent setbacks. The story, as Kant conceives it, is dynamic and historical movements could be explained dialécticamente. “In both authors there is also a positive assessment of the conflict. Marx said that the antagonism, already present in human nature itself (which is unsocial sociability) is the mechanism that uses nature to progress matters humanos.-Finally, both authors understand that history has a purpose, a difference lies in their conception of history for Marx is the development of matter (while for Kant is the story unfold through time of the Enlightenment ideals such as freedom, autonomy. This contrasts with the idealistic materialism Marx’s historical, from which the Kantian conception ideológica. could be described as “The
end of the story is different for both: the classless society of which Marx speaks is not the same union that great cosmopolitan people describing Kant in his work. The policy approach of Kant and illustrated the role that conflicts with Marx’s historical materialism gives to the economy.- Both the conception of man and the culture in which they live are very different for both thinkers. For Kant, a man is essentially right, and this is the attribute that sets him apart from animals. By contrast, the essence of being human is, for Marx, the work and activity. In terms of culture, is interpreted with suspicion, as they often can assume an ideological function that helps to maintain the basic contradiction of the infrastructure.