Hume Vs Kant

Opening DORES What makes an action morally praiseworthy or blameworthy? Philosophers have been struggling with the notions of morality and ethics as well as the origins of these ideas for millenia. Both Immanuel Kant and David Hume concern themselves with the concept of morality in their respective works, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and A Treatise of Human Nature, while taking vastly different approaches to them. Kant primarily fixates on the role of reason and rationality in morality, duty, and goodwill and forms intricate relationships between all of them. Hume, however, claims that moral distinctions do not arise from reason, but rather that moral distinctions are derived from what he calls a moral sense. To begin my argument,

The first being that action has moral worth when done from duty and not from inclination (Kant, 12). Kant would continue to accept the moral praiseworthiness of my action as long as it stems from a sense of duty, not inclination. Following the first proposition, the second states that “an action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which the action is determined” (Kant, 12-13). Finally, the last proposition states that “duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law” (Kant, 13). Kant sums up his argument by saying that “the pre-eminent good which is called moral can consist in nothing but the representation of the law in itself, and such a representation can admittedly be found only in a rational being insofar as this representation...is the determining ground of the will” (Kant, 13-14). According to Kant, my action would continue to be morally praiseworthy as long as a rational being did opened the door for others from a sense of duty, while not expecting any external reward or

The categorical imperative is the idea that “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 14). After much deliberation, Kant concludes that the categorical imperative must be the only one. Afterward, Kant states the first formulation of the categorical imperative, sometimes called the formula of the law of nature, “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (Kant, 30). Expounding upon this idea, Kant explains the difference between perfect(irremissible) and imperfect(meritorious) duty (Kant, 32). Perfect duty is binding and unchanging when applied on a universal scale, while through his examples, Kant shows that imperfect duty may seem morally good on the surface but when applied to a universal scale, they fall short (Kant, 32). Since my action falls in line with the categorical imperative and its first formulation, Kant would continue to agree that opening doors for others is morally praiseworthy since the rational being opening the doors is acting as if they want their action to become a universal law of nature. It remains a perfect duty as long as you open the door for all people who are relatively close in area to you and do not change your action based on