Philosophy is a broad field with a variety of subtopics that need to be deciphered in order to understand how human brains function. Rationally, human beings decide what is right and wrong to them at any particular instance. Thus, when it comes to morality, it is crucial to understand that people get involved with what is universally or culturally viewed as right while distancing themselves with the wrong. Additionally, human beings work towards gaining pleasure or happiness from whatever they do and consider their actions as the determinants of what they would get at the end. Hume and Kant focused on reason in morality. However, Hume claims that moral distinctions do not rest on reason at all while this argument is refuted by Kant.

Hume’s argument

Hume’s standpoint clearly points out that moral judgments are solely dependent on motives and character which are behind the actions of human beings. He claims that people depend on a “peculiar” feeling which includes that of disapproval (humility and hatred) and that of approval (love and pride). Contrary to Kant’s perspective, Hume treats reason as a factor that predicts the impacts of a particular motive or those of a trait. Therefore, it does not directly play a role in moral judgment or when choosing between the right and wrong thing. In other words, a specific trait can give pleasure a conducive atmosphere, and this cannot be the same as claiming that an act is right or virtuous.

In light with Hume’s argument, it is good to examine other works and review how they have approached the issue at hand. For instance, as seen in Book III of ‘Nicomachean ethics,’ “Everything that is done by reason of ignorance is not voluntary, it is only what produces pain and repentance that is involuntary” (Aristotle). This means that in determining morality, reason must play a crucial role instead of motives or character traits as insinuated by Hume. This argument brings up the Kantian ethics which indicate that reason is vital factor in morality and needs to be put into consideration at all times.Before doing anything, one has to consider the ethical nature and whether it would inflict pain or pleasure to the recipient of the same.

Kant’s Refutation

According to Kant, one has to choose how to behave in a morally acceptable manner. Thus, in order to refute Hume’s perspective, he utilizes the first-person judgments and claims that certain conduct can be allowable if it is as per the moral law. Thus, one has to reason correctly to determine whether he/she (the agent) is acting in accordance with such a law. The bill is usually known to command individuals into doing the right thing, and even though something might appear virtuous, it might need more reasoning. Thus, one does not have to go as per his or her conscience without necessarily thinking about the situation at hand. This proves that human mind is a crucial aspect when it comes to moral judgment since one has to factor in the applicability of the law to determine what is right and wrong.

While talking about experience and emotion, Kant claims that moral judgment does not require one to know more about human nature nor have expertise. Also, one does not need emotional sensitivity. Instead, reasoning takes the normative authority as opposed to the way Hume views it that it performs a normative role. Nonetheless, it is good to remember the fact that Kant does not believe that reason is the significant focus even though he talks about it in most of the instances. However, when he feels in is that responses regarding motives and action can only be vindicated through pure reason. This can be elaborated as the vital necessity of the good regulations and associated commands. In reality, feeling or emotion ensures that people make the right application of the moral law. Thus, even though Kant tries to refute what Hume stands for, he still refers to some of the tenets of morality and how they apply in making crucial decisions and application of feelings or emotions.

Kant also shares the Aristotelian perspective regarding the overall utility of practical reasoning and how it applies to make a moral judgment. According to this view, people usually go for what is right or good while foregoing what is conceived in the wrong way (Broadie and Row 76). As opposed to Hume, Aristotle and Kant focus more on moral reasoning than the practical one. This shows that what comes into the mind of most of the human beings is what is viewed as right and wrong in the lenses of societal ideals. Thus, active reasoning needs to be considered in the process. While arguing about the actions of a man who makes a moral judgment, Aristotle indicates that “now we may ask how a man who judges rightly can behave incontinently.”

The Strongest Argument

After looking at the two claims regarding the need for reason in morality, it is clear that Kant seems to be more convincing than Hume. I think that Kant has a more significant point since he views reason as a practical aspect which contributes significantly to a moral judgment whereby an individual can decipher between right and wrong. This is contrary to Hume’s view since he treats reason as “a slave of passions.” When a human being gives his or her emotions or passions to lead him/her, it would be hard to decide what is morally right or wrong. In fact, it is not justifiable to give a human being the motive required to attain a particular will. This means that reason is not the main concept as per Hume as compared to Kant who thinks otherwise. A good example is an instance whereby one feels that vengeance is the best way of dealing with a loss of loved one. As a result, he or she would end up killing the perpetrator since emotions are the driving forces. The outcome would include being convicted of murder or even being killed in turn.

I also believe that Kant’s point of view has a lot of backing from contemporary and modern philosophers who have made an impact in this field. While addressing the application of pleasures, appetitesand passion, Aristotle indicates that individuals go for anything that appears noble and pleasant. Thus, they tend to choose it. However, going by such a kind of choice rules out the major role of reasoning as indicated by Kant. This means that Hume took some of the explanations from the initial philosopherswithout focusing majorly on the practical nature of reasoning as required in making crucial moral judgments (Reeve). Going by appetites and pleasures, people would end up choosing what fits them in disregard of what the society views as ideal for all or just. Therefore, Kant’s argument has more strength since it considers whether an individual’s actions would inflict pain or pleasure on those in the receiving end. If Hume could have considered this, then reasoning would have gotten more room than in Kant. Already, Hume had pointed out how motive is arrived at in moral judgment and that it is triggered by emotions. If thinking preceded emotional steps, the two philosophers could have been in the same level and in that case, their arguments could have had a similar impact.

In conclusion, Kant and Hume have various differences with it comes to perceiving reason in morality. What people think it is virtuous or good is determined by many factors. As per Hume, emotions or feelings are the driving force behind moral judgment and he disregards the maiden role of reason in directing the individual’s motive towards doing the right and steering away from the wrong. On the other hand, while claiming that reason is the slave of passions, Kant tends to offer a lenient criticism of how it impacts motive. Thus, when one reasons before getting involved in an act, he or she is likely to do the right thing.Reasoning tends to take the normative role during moral judgment as per Kant and in this regard, there is no need to consider knowing more about human nature or experiencing similar situations. Instead, one can just reason out to impact his or her motives, thus, picking what is right and leaving out the wrong.

Works Cited

Allison, Henry E. Custom and reason in Hume: a Kantian reading of the first book of the Treatise. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Book III.

Broadie, Sarah, and Christopher Rowe. “Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics: Translation, Introduction, Commentary.” (2002).

Chroust, Anton-Hermann. Aristotle: New Light on His Life and On Some of His Lost Works, Volume 2: Observations on Some of Aristotle’s Lost Works. Routledge, 2015.

Neiman, Susan. “The unity of reason: rereading Kant.” (1994).

Reeve, Charles David Chanel. “The Practices of Reason: Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.” (1992).

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?