Maya Ho

yh2730
Professor Billows
Contemporary Civilizations

!
!

On the Nature of Morality

Both David Hume and Immanuel Kant interpret morality in An Enquiry Concerning the

Principles of Morals and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals respectively. Hume argues
for sentiment based morality, coupled with utility, divorced of religious affiliation as the ethical
guide, eventually leading to an implied support for moral relativity. Kant, who writes in response
to Humes principles, proposes the oppositea theory of universal morality. He employs a priori
reasoning, categorical imperative, good will, and practical reason to support moral universalism.
The two opposing theories subsequently lead a reader to contemplate what is more applicable,
reasonable, or attainable in modern society. A sensitive exploration of either side illuminates
fallacies in each. Their radical, problematic ideas ultimately suggest evaluating each based on
consequence, and Kant, in that regard, lends greater relevance to maintaining social stability.

!
Hume
According to Hume, moral judgments or moral sense are essentially the reactions of
sentiment. He derives the focus on sense from Hobbes, who emphasized people have memory
and imagination. We recognize moral good and evil by means of certain feelings, or sentiments:
the calm pleasure of moral approval or the discomfiting displeasure of moral disapproval. The
notion of approval and disapproval is not sourced from reason. Hume claims Truth is
disputable; not taste: What exists in the nature of things is the standard of our judgement; what
each man feels within himself is the standard of sentiment (Hume, 14). Traits, whether they are
feelings, motives, or abilities that elicit approval, are ones useful. Those that spark disapproval
are harmful. We call the traits that elicit our approval virtues, and those that elicit our
disapproval vices. Such is the importance of sentiments. Lack of sentiments will render men
totally indifferent towards these distinctions; and morality is no longer a practical study (15).
Hume establishes the subjective nature of morals, and the individual focus from the onset. He

argues that without sentiments, there are not morals because sentimentality is the essence of
morality. Therefore, a discussion that does not acknowledge the value of sentiments is not then
not a discussion of morality.
His second major point lies in the social utility of morals, for example justice. Hume
radically states That public utility is the sole origin of justice, and that reflections on the
beneficial consequences of this virtue are the sole foundation of its merit (20) is the motivation
behind justice. Conclusively, Hume sees morality as a social tool for mutual benefit, much like
Hobbes. Hobbes claimed the state of nature is the state of war, that people only form the
leviathan to have a binding contract for every member of society, to escape the chaos of the state
of nature. He suggests that the leviathan forces each individual to surrender some personal
freedom for greater gain, whether it be safety, security, or stability. Like Hobbes, Hume
continues on this notion of social constructs simply used to maintain order. He goes on to
reference private property (much like Hobbes) to say mutual benevolence (22) is key to
promoting harmonious communities. In a more summative statement, Hume claims that the
rules of equity or justice depend entirely on the particular state and condition, in which men are
placed, and owe their origin and existence to that UTILITY (23). Therefore, no two societal
contexts are identical. Thus, no two utilities will be the same. Finally, there will never be an
universal moral code because ethics are dependent on utility, and no two utilities overlap.
Humes two major streams of thoughtsentiments and utilityoffer a practical,
empirical analysis of morality. He sees that the balance of sentiment and utility maximizes
morality and society. In treating ideas like common universal morals like kindness, he brings the
discussion back to the notion of usefulness.
Thus, Hume sees reasons limited role in ethics. The chief responsibility Hume assigns to
reason is helping agents see which actions and qualities are genuinely beneficial or efficacious.
Reason, according to Hume, is concerned with truth or falsehood. Reason makes inferences, but
does not sets ends or motivates action. Focusing on the individual once more, Hume explain our
personal ends or goals depend on desire, which depends sentiments. Once feeling establishes
utility as the primary objective, reason is responsible for working out the means to achieve the
ends. Reason is not the end, the fulfillment of the desire is the ultimate end. Reasons other

responsibility is related to judgement. Hume explains it is often necessary, we find, that much
reasoning should precede, that nice distinctions be made, conclusions drawn (15). To make the
correct call, one needs all relevant facts and an understanding of said facts. Such processes
require reason. The moral judgment itself, however, is still based on sentiment. To Hume, reason
is a objectified tool, the slave to ones appetitive desire, a calculation machine to achieve and
fulfill passions.
Following the notion of societal utility, Hume adamantly contends morality is
independent from ecclesiastical affiliation. Besides recognizing constructs like religion as social
tools, his ethical works clearly grounds morality in human nature alone. Continuing with his
same practical note, Hume argues Fanatics may supposed that dominion is founded on grace,
and that saints alone inherit the earth; but the civil magistrate very justly puts these sublime
theorists on the same footing with common robbers (27). Divine enlightenment, whether it
exists or not, is of no concern to Hume. All he recognizes is that in the society one lives and
breathes in, this said divinely revealed ethical code has no affect. From his usefulness point,
there is no need to bother with religious debates because the conclusion does not affect reality.
He makes a case for morality that stands just as well without a theistic underpinning as with one.
Again, this points back to moral universalism. From a relevance standpoint, if in some
community the church and state are completely bound, a unified body, then maybe Hume will
argue in favor of the same religious ethics. If they are practical and serve purpose in that
particular community, then the law of utility will encourage devout worship of that ethical code.
Again, this highlights that use can be vastly different from one place to another, and Hume will
argue that one only needs to do what is best fit in his or her immediate context.
Ultimately, one can suspect Hume views the term universal natural rights as useless,
empty diction without a real representation. He believes they have no significance in society and
is therefore meaningless. While he acknowledges human sentiments role in moral thinking, his
practicality also notes self-interest or social utility is not necessarily bad. Further, human
sentiment is subjective as each individual is unique, therefore the derived moral thinking must
then be unique and subjective as well. Lastly, his pursuit of a secular theory of virtue reflects
belief in moral obligations independent of divine commands. Because if divine command does

play a role in ethical guidance, then that feeds into moral universalism. With Humes present
arguments, one can infer he supports the moral relativist view.
Kant
!

Kant begins that his theory of morality must be a priori or pure because morality

must be authoritative and unconditional. He emphasizes that the supreme moral principle must
be discovered a priori, through a method of pure moral philosophy revealed through reason alone
(Kant, 7-8) because its a priori nature necessitates its universality. Kant continues that this
absolute pure form of morality triumphs against posteriori philosophyprinciples inferred
through observation or experience (empiricism). This is because empiricism acts as a descriptive
summary of how people do act, it cannot tell how people shall act. The supreme moral
principles goal is to provide fundamentally authority and dictate unconditional commands.
Given the universal nature of a priori morality, it is then impossible to derive a universal
principle/moral law through empirical means. One must use the a priori method. If one does not
separate a priori with posteriori, one will not differentiate between conditional truths (ones that
tell subjective goods for certain individuals) and unconditional truths(Kant 4:38990). Concisely,
Kant believes each cognitive individual can discover the a priori universal morality through
individual reason. This supreme moral law then is rendered universal, unconditional, and
personal.!

Kant then introduces the a priori notion of good will and duty that highlights again the

universally shared morality between individuals. He explains that rational beings who possess
the common cognition to arrive at the universal supreme moral code will also arrive at the
universal conclusion of good will. First, he notes It is impossible to think of anything at all in
the worldgood without limitation, except a good will (9) because it is the only source of
unconditional good that regardless of circumstance, cannot be undermined by results or external
factors. He provides the example of a rescuer. Although there are certain risks, regardless of the
outcome, the rescuers good intent and morals. His good will therefore is entirely independent,
the good of the good will is unconditional because An action from duty has its moral worth
not in the purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which it is resolved
upon, and thus it does not depend on the actuality of the object of the action, but merely on the

principle of willing (15). And to accurately determine what moral laws guide moral actions,
Kant chooses to focus on a sub-category of good willduty. Because securing ones own
happiness is ones duty (14), good will, especially in this case of duty is a universal moral
obligation. The source of the moral law is not in the agent's feelings, natural impulses or
inclinations, but a pure, rational will, a duty to achieve what the agent sets out to accomplish.
This will, a good will, must be universal as well.
However, Kant also explains a potential weakness in this argument that leads him to
address practical reason. He foresees one might question how one knows he or she is acting
purely out of will. Since reason is not sufficiently fit to guide the will reliably with regard to its
objects and the satisfaction of all our needsbut reason as a practical faculty must be to
produce a will that is goodgood in itself (11). Kants moral law appears as a principle of
practical reason, rendering practical reason a separate category from Humes pure reason.
Perhaps an effort to rescue his universal idealism towards the nature of morality, Kant
acknowledges one never entirely knows whether he or she is acting solely from duty. He brings
about the notion of both hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. The former
represent the practical necessity of a possible action as a means to achieving soothing else that
one wants. Thus, hypothetical imperatives provide a means to an end, not the end itself. But
since the good will or duty is said to be infinitely good itself, the hypothetical imperative is not
incentivized by duty but rather appetitive desire or practical reason that tells us how to want and
what we want. Kant then outlines The categorical imperative would be the one that represented
an action as objectively necessary by itself, without reference to another end (28). Therefore,
the categorical imperative is the ends itself, willed by pure reason. He again proves that the
potential rebuttal failswill is motivated by both practical reason and pure reason. Kant
solidifies his universal good will argument through acknowledging the existence of practical
reason.
Kant believes ultimately however that morality presents itself to thinking agents as a
categorical imperative that ideally become universal moral law. Coupling this imperative with
various facts and an embodied agency, rational beings derive all specific, unique moral duties.
Kant says that the supreme moral principle is, for rational beings who do not necessarily follow

the moral law, a categorical imperative act as if the maxim of your action were to become by
your will a universal law of nature (34). It is an imperative because it commands and constrains
us; it is a categorical imperative because it commands and constrains us absolutely, with ultimate
authority and without regard to our preferences or empirical features or circumstances. Perhaps
the two best known formulations of the categorical imperative are the formula of universal law,
which commands, act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same
time will that it become a universal law (33), and the formula of the end in itself that
commands, So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means (41). Kant realizes the first
contention will both hurt and help an individual, because there is now one objective, global
universal law. He further suggests one treats others like ends, not means to an end. Therefore,
like the individual, all others also universally share the same categorical imperative of these
common commands operate at the same shared level.
Kants argument on the nature of morality can be traced from the a priori origins of the
supreme ethical law. This a priori morality is the assumption necessary to reach a universal
ethical code. With the same pure reason, a thinking being will naturally possess the good will, an
inclination divorced with the action resulting from such thinking. While he sees that people
commonly fall from the command of absolute ethical laws and acknowledges the existence of
practical reason or the hypothetical imperative, Kant ultimately explains the good will of pure
reason leads to the categorical imperative. This categorical will therefore provide the universal
law thats entirely objective to every individual, thus proving that morality is and must be
universal.

!
Personal Reflection on Application in Different Modern-day Societies
Hume's method of moral philosophy is experimental and empirical; Kant emphasizes the
necessity of grounding morality in a priori principles. Hume says that reason is properly a slave
to the passions, while Kant bases morality in his conception of a reason that is practical in itself.
Hume identifies such feelings as benevolence and generosity as proper moral motivations; Kant
sees the motive of dutya motive that Hume usually views as a second best or fall back motive

as uniquely expressing an agent's commitment to morality and thus as conveying a special moral
worth to actions. Although there are many points at which Kant's and Hume's ethics stand in
opposition to each other, it might be more appropriate to approach each from a consequential
standpoint, to see which ultimately operates better in modern society.!
But in personal consideration of both Humes and Kants theories, in order to decide what
seems better of the two, both need to be considered in relevance to modern society. Moral
relativism allows for problematic logical digressions that follow. Humes Moral relativism
naturally leads to tolerance of outrageous practices like slavery or domestic violence as long as
there is some utility or reasons validated by the standards of the relevant society. Relativism
inhibits us from raising moral objections against ridiculous social customs even if those
traditions are preserved and approved by the codes of the societies they exist in. Additionally,
excessive justification or reliance on relativism lowers the moral standard. An individual or
group no longer needs to self-evaluate, eventually leaving room for little improvement or
change. And if change happens, society will only see it as one system replacing another, instead
of acknowledging the problems with the previous model. Without a set of standards of judge any
societys deficient practices, abandoning slavery is not seen as moral progress but merely
replacing one set of standards with another. Lastly, moral relativism if taken to the extreme
becomes amorality. Taking relativism a step further, a society can slowly see no basis of right
and wrong at all. Morality is meaningless since ones ethical rules are entirely artificial, societal
constructs that foster harmony or Humes utility. Such a society will have increasing ethical
factions, until people start to act completely according to themselveschaos. The dangers of any
of these results are too serious to overlook.
Likewise, universal morality also proves problematic in the context of varied cultural
differences. Although Kant might argue that through reason, humans will naturally reach the
same conclusion, his theory fails. The infinite cultures, values, and moral attitudes of different
groups and even individuals within each group prove his invalidity. If people cannot reach the
absolute morality in unison, there must be an unnamed, unquestionable source. For morals to be
truly universal, there must be a universally approved authority to interpret ethics. Without a
discussion of a supreme being or religion, proving the existence of the supreme being is nearly

impossible. Even with religious reasoning, one will eventually come to axioms that must be
accepted as true without proof. Therefore, moral universalism seems an unlikely explanation for
absolute moral law and even more unlikely model for todays world.
A personal reflection must consider the criticisms of both moral relativism and moral
universalism. The fallacies in all three areas prove neither viewpoint is promising for society.
Instead, the moderate medium may incorporate the advantageous of both. It seems most
promising to hold communities accountable for general moral values but allow for slight
discrepancies. Then, regarding the nature of morality, there is no supreme, universal law or
significant differences fundamentally. Instead, there are varied disagreements that exist against a
background of universal agreement on general matters.
Ultimately, Kant is the better fit for modern communities. The fallacies in his theory only
lie in the origin of the argument. Humes issue lies in the repercussions of his theory. In todays
society, it is much more practical (ironically) to look at things from a consequentialist point of
view, and Kant surpasses Hume in this regard. Further there is an element of practicality in
Kants theory. He does not expect people to follow the exact rules. He acknowledges individuals
repeatedly fall from the perfect ethics. He accounts for human error through the hypothetical
imperative. Moreover, the categorical imperative is meant to be applied to life, not to be copied.
Kant allows for varied disagreements that exist against a background of universal agreements of
general matters. Therefore, for modern society, the Kantian theory of universal morality triumphs
against Humes moral relativity.

!
Works Cited
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Ed. J. B. Schneewind. !
!

Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983. Print.!

Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, !
!

U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.!