Kant’s philosophical foundation analysis
Introduction.
In this essay I will talk about the following authors, Kant talking about his book foundation for a metaphysics of customs and Hume with his book research on the principles of morals, explaining what each author thought as well as connection points and discrepancies between their thoughts. Specifically, where the issues that I will discuss will be on morals, what is the origin of their distinctions, what is its basis in the actions and finally where they come and in which the valuations of what is good and that it is bad.
Developing.
For Hume there is no innate feeling, so all the knowledge of someone is due to experience. Hume imposes a virtue called benevolence that is typical of humans that leads us to do good and benefit society. That refers to the action of seeing that act is good and what is bad because of this that we must sympathize with others, when he suffers pain we must also feel and the same with other feelings or sensations, then to try to explain under what Concepts The benevolence is based on reason and feelings, where it says that both ideas are required, since they complement each other, but that are not established from reason, but if they have a basis in emotions. Virtue is any action that causes approval to a spectator.
Hume says that acts of morality should always be thought under the society and well -being of this. In Hume’s thinking, moral theory is subject to the feeling of approval and disapproval, due to the selfish and self-conservation principle that occurs among individuals. In this sense, self-interest is related to happiness, therefore, Hume will say that utility is only a tendency towards a certain purpose; And it is a contradiction in the terms to say that something pleases as a means towards an end, in cases where the end does not affect us in any way.
Talk about utility concept
Hume refers to the concept of utility, this concept can be understood as everything that generates an increase in pleasure and pain deprivation. So it would transform into an important concept, since it has to do with the fact of making moral decisions and what is our end. Reason cannot be practical, only theoretical.
For Hume the activity of reason is divided into two types, in knowledge about facts and in knowledge of the relationships between ideas. The motor of the actions corresponds to the passions. A medium is good if it helps us get the end. Reason evaluates means not ends. Reason can influence the decision, but indirectly. The distinctions between the good and the bad are based on the feeling that is of pleasure or pain, the virtue causes us pleasure and the vice displeasure =============
The origin of Hume’s morals comes from the concept of utility, therefore, any aspect that intends to become a good for society requires approval at the individual level and our good will.
Kant:
Kan’s moral idea is formed with the union of actions that spread with respect to experiences and that for this reason precedes the deliberate performance of an act. The will is the raw material from which moral acts must be structured, so the moral legislation that Kant speaks emerges from his will, that is, in this capacity is the foundation for his acts.
Moral norms originate from reason, which is part of the individual’s mental structure, that is, they are something congenital and have nothing to do with empirical principles: “Empirical principles do not serve in any way to base moral laws.”(Kant, 2014, P.160).
In no way, reason produces ethical principles, instead of reason is limited to revealing equivalent circumstances, where common circumstances can be grouped to extract the element in common, by which the qualities that are estimated seem to coincide and with this The foundation of ethics. Not in pure reason as Kant says, but in the qualities of the events called Morales.
Categorical imperative
Universal Maxima
For Kant one, he had to seek pleasure avoiding pain. Where also for moral acts one should think of the consequence, so if I found it was good if I could do it, based on universal principles and not on the law of the country, for example.
For Kant Morality is a property of reason and to see if the acts were good or bad, they are seen who were influenced, if for reason or feelings, if it was influenced by reason it is classified Like a morally good act.
The will is good of nature, and the act itself does not matter but how we execute it. Goodwill is the intention to do good = and here I did not understand =
Practical laws are rules of conduct that will determine the parameters to classify morally good acts.
Duty is what leads us to do morally good acts since these would be governed under practical laws and not under a private interest.
To determine a person as a virtuous person is one who does her acts based on reason and not for private interests. ================
For Kant there was only a completely good thing, which corresponds to a will that acts for duty is a good will
For Kant there are three types of acts, acts made against duty, acts made according to duty and finally the acts made by duty. The facts according to duty have a selfish inclination, which means that the maximum of these acts is not moral, the only acts that are completely moral correspond to the acts made by duty. what determines whether the actions are moral or not their maximum or their purpose. where to act for duty are a reverence to moral law. The human being can act by principles since we have will or practical reason. Experience teaches us what is, instead of reason what there should be. moral laws have imperatives are formulas for determining action. For the author there are 3 imperatives that can be imposed on will. Technical imperative to obtain a skill, the pragmatic imperative that pattern must take to get to happiness, finally, categorical imperative is the one that corresponds to morals orders actions in case they are good.
However, it is a reason that is not natural and does not precede its own moral thinking, but is reduced to the spontaneity of the universal moral law when it judges the legitimacy or moral illegitimacy of the maxims proposed by the individual.
Kant said “it is not possible to think anything in the world, or after all, it neither did it, which can be had no good restriction, except for a good will. (Kant, P.79)
Kant raises “as soon as the reason has been assigned to us as a practical capacity, that is, as a capacity that must have influence on the will, then the authentic destiny of reason must consist of generating a good will in itself and not as half regarding one or another purpose, something for which reason was absolutely necessary (kant, p.84)
As Kant said that the only completely good thing corresponds to a good will, which means that if its maxim is based on the moral law is considered good
In order for an act to be given some moral value, it must be in a certain way that the resulting act is transformed into a universal maximum.
Discrepancies: ===========
The first discrepancy that can be noted is with respect to what is the foundation of moral acts, where Kant says that it is exclusively the reason based on the maximum of action, however for Hume the senses and through feelings are more important of approval or disapproval.
CONNECTIONS:
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the foundation of morality for Hume corresponds to the senses and these with the experience, while for Kant one that is based on the reason guided by the maxims and the imperatives.
Leave feedback