• Aristotle, Hume,Kant and Nietzsche on Ethics | …
  • Kant and Hume on Morality | David Hume | Immanuel Kant
  • The problems presented by Hume and Kant ..

He declared that “the difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness with which they strike upon the mind” (Hume, pg.

In Kant’s eyes, reason is directly correlated with morals and ideals.

Aristotle, Hume,Kant and Nietzsche on Ethics | Stockerblog

However, like Hume, Kant encounters an obstacle and does not find a solution for it.
Kant approaches the matter as he does because he is responding to , and one of Hume's initial challenges is about the origin of "ideas." While the Problem of First Principles is about the justification of propositions, Hume's Empiricist approach goes back to asking about the legitimacy of the very concepts, of which the propositions are constituted, in the first place.

Mar 26, 2008 · Kant and Hume on Morality

Although Hume and Kant shared some basic principals they differed on their view of morality.
Third, in viewing virtue as a trait grounded in moral principles, andvice as principled transgression of moral law, Kant thought of himselfas thoroughly rejecting what he took to be the Aristotelian view thatvirtue is a mean between two vices. The Aristotelian view, he claimed,assumes that virtue typically differs from vice only in terms ofdegree rather than in terms of the different principles each involves(MM 6:404, 432). Prodigality and avarice, for instance, do not differby being too loose or not loose enough with one’s means. Theydiffer in that the prodigal person acts on the principle of acquiringmeans with the sole intention of enjoyment, while the avariciousperson acts on the principle of acquiring means with the soleintention of possessing them.


Hume and Kant: The Synthetic A Priori Problem – Jay's …

Second, virtue is, for Kant, strength of will, and hence does notarise as the result of instilling a “second nature” by aprocess of habituating or training ourselves to act and feel inparticular ways. It is indeed a disposition, but a disposition ofone’s will, not a disposition of emotions, feelings, desires orany other feature of human nature that might be amenable tohabituation. Moreover, the disposition is to overcome obstacles tomoral behavior that Kant thought were ineradicable features of humannature. Thus, virtue appears to be much more like what Aristotle wouldhave thought of as a lesser trait, viz., continence orself-control.

Fourth, in classical views the distinction between moral and non-moralvirtues is not particularly significant. A virtue is some sort ofexcellence of the soul, but one finds classical theorists treating witand friendliness alongside courage and justice. Since Kant holds moralvirtue to be a trait grounded in moral principle, the boundary betweennon-moral and moral virtues could not be more sharp. Even so, Kantshows a remarkable interest in non-moral virtues; indeed, much ofAnthropology is given over to discussing the nature andsources of a variety of character traits, both moral andnon-moral.

4 Comments on Hume and Kant: The Synthetic A Priori Problem

First, Kant’s account of virtue presupposes an account of moralduty already in place. Thus, rather than treating admirable charactertraits as more basic than the notions of right and wrong conduct, Kanttakes virtues to be explicable only in terms of a prior account ofmoral or dutiful behavior. He does not try to make out what shape agood character has and then draw conclusions about how we ought to acton that basis. He sets out the principles of moral conduct based onhis philosophical account of rational agency, and then on that basisdefines virtue as a kind of strength and resolve to act on thoseprinciples despite temptations to the contrary.

Kant saw all of this when he read Hume and was rightly alarmed

Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a humanbeing’s will in fulfilling his duty” (MM 6:405) andvice as principled immorality (MM 6:390). This definition appears toput Kant’s views on virtue at odds with classical views such asAristotle’s in several important respects.

Hume and Kant - Shippensburg University

Kant refers to his "system" as the "Transcendental Philosophy"which now appears to be essentially the endeavor to explain how synthetic knowledge is possible:
It may be said, that the entire transcendental philosophy, which necessarilyprecedes all metaphysics, is nothing but the complete solution of the problemhere propounded, in systematical order and completeness, and hitherto wehave never had any transcendental philosophy; for what goes by its nameis properly a part of metaphysics, whereas the former sciences intendedfirst to constitute the possibility of the 'matter, and must thereforeprecede all metaphysics.

They are, of course, David Hume and Immanuel Kant

Since knowledge of metaphysical propositions (about thenature of reality) cannot be justified empirically (as Hume showed), Kantreturns to the issue that "escaped" Hume: How could one have synthetic knowledge?
All metaphysicians are therefore solemnly and legally suspended from theiroccupations till they shall have answered in a satisfactory manner thequestion, "How are synthetic cognitions possible?" Forthe answer contains the only credentials which they must show when theyhave anything to offer in the name of pure reason.