Summary:
Human moral theory can only be based on human action. It is important to understand why humans regard things as moral and Hume does an excellent job of explaining this based on observable human characteristics. A theory like Kant's lacks this quality. Since its basis is not observable it lacks the credibility for application. It is simply an idealistic approach to morals. Although potentially very pleasing, Kant's ideas loses their own validity by straying from humanity and into divinity.
The empirical nature of science has allowed for its success in solving great human problems and in understanding the world around us. Real life data and observations lead to such findings, which only then can be translated into theory. A theory without data is merely a hypothesis waiting to be shown true through observation. If you start with a theory and then try to prove it, you are taking a biased position and setting out to complete an impossible task. Nothing can be proven in science, only accepted until shown otherwise. Immanuel Kant in his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals and David Hume in his An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals each take a very different approach in establishing their moral theory. Hume bases his theory on observations he makes of the society around him, while Kant instead establishes a theory based on his understanding of humanness and from this sets to prove his moral theory. Hume establishes a realistic theory explaining the morals of humans whereas Kant struggles to fit human morals into an idealistic model that he perceives.
Kant creates a beautiful moral theory only fit for the Gods, assuming you believe in a divinity to begin with. It is not difficult to like what Kant writes and imagine how such an extraordinary system might govern something as spiritually charged as moral theory. However, Kant commits the fatal flaw in presenting his moral theory. He takes the assumption that the potential to act on pure reason is innately a human characteristic and from this sets to prove his theory. Given this assumption, his argument is brilliantly made. However, he has no real basis for this argument. Kant even admits the limit of his assumption.
Reason would overstep all its limits if it took upon itself how pure reason can be practical. This would be identical with the task of explaining how freedom is possible...Freedom, however, is a mere Idea: its objective validity can in now way be exhibited by reference to laws of nature and consequently cannot be exhibited in any possible experience.
Although it may seem like a logical approach, particularly given the teachings of many religions, it has no basis in science or observation. It is so blatantly obvious, that even Kant cannot ignore it and instead must attempt to write it off. This is a difficult task because it relies on the belief that such a divine quality exists that sets us apart from other animals, an assumption that can only be made from religious doctrine. History gives us many examples of the pitfalls of presenting such a theory and then setting out to prove it, without allowing the possibility of it being false. The Catholic Church was notorious for supporting only scientific theories in accordance with the bible and suppressing ideas presented that conflicted with religious truth. This is very much like what Kant has done. He accepts something as true and then painstakingly works to prove it without allowing for the possibility of its falsehood. The ability of humans for pure reason is not an observed scientific truth, but instead an idealistic theory created to set us apart from our animal counterparts. It is easy to argue that our brain functions are more complex in many ways than other species. However to simply state that because of this we possess the ability to take actions apart from feelings, experiences and other external influences is a ridiculous assumption to make. Such a theory is based on the religious teachings that humans are partly divine, not on any discernable observation of actual human behavior. Kant would argue that observations cannot be the basis for morality. ."..the question at issue here is not whether this or that has happened; that, on the contrary, reason by itself and independently of all appearances commands what ought to happen..." (Kant, 75). Judging something based on what "ought" to happen rather than what actually occurs is always dangerous. Quantum physics provides an excellent example of this. If scientists developing quantum theory made assumptions based on what "ought" to happen, they would have made it nowhere. According to classical physics, something cannot be in multiple places at once. However in the case of quantum particles this does not appear to be the case. They can be in multiple places at the same time. This is not logical to human understanding of the world. However, through observations scientists have shown it to be true. It was certainly not what they expected, but it happened, so it cannot be disregarded. As much as Kant would like to disregard what he observes around him as it often does not fit within his idealistic model, it is irresponsible to do so and paints an incomplete picture of human morality. No human on earth is a walking God, as many people and religions would like to believe. Instead, we are sophisticated animals reacting to our environments. A truly human theory would explain morality within this observation.
Hume presents a statement on the basis of morality in humans by linking characteristics of observations he makes on human relationships. He starts first by gathering evidence as to what is generally regarded as moral and then seeks to explain the common factor. This follows directly with the nature of empirical science. He gathers data, formulates a hypothesis, and shows how his hypothesis is exemplified. He takes a very capitalistic approach to morality, a system proven time and time again to be the most effective in modeling human behavior. He bases everything on usefulness. ."..personal merit consists altogether in the possession of mental qualities useful or agreeable to the person himself or to others." People act in ways the benefit either themselves or society. Hume does not try to offer an explanation from this, but instead he offers the evidence that people doing things for others can be witnessed all the time. Everyone has observed someone doing something for someone else. People feel good about doing things for others. Whether or not they do it because it is ultimately useful for them is beside the point. The point is that it is beneficial for us all to live in a society of justice and happiness. This is why people feel good about doing good things for others. To say that we are all fundamentally self interested is disregarding evidence. People, for whatever reason, do good things for each other.
All mankind so far resemble the good principle that, where interest or revenge or envy perverts not our disposition, we are always inclined, from our natural philanthropy to give the preference to the happiness of society, and consequently to virtue above its opposite. (Hume, 38)
Many people try to undermine Hume's theory, particularly with his ideas of agreeable qualities. His ideas that cheerfulness, modesty and cleanliness are moral virtues are very controversial. However, they cannot be written off. Human character is most certainly based on these qualities, although admittedly by Hume to a lesser extent than qualities like justice and benevolence. Although it may be regarded as artificial, this is simply how humans operate on the whole. Grumpiness certainly detracts from the character of a virtuous person. We live in society and a large part of that is being able to interact with one another, or else nothing would get done. Hume does an excellent job of uniting the characteristics of actions humans regard as moral. They are useful and agreeable. Humans act on these qualities and are very much intertwined. Why would people do something that isn't useful or agreeable? That is just not how humans live.
Human moral theory can only be based on human action. It is important to understand why humans regard things as moral and Hume does an excellent job of explaining this based on observable human characteristics. This theory can then be used to judge the morality of questionable circumstances. A theory like Kant's lacks this quality. Since its basis is not observable it lacks the credibility for application. It does not apply to real world situations because it is not founded on real world data. It is simply an idealistic approach to morals. Although potentially very pleasing, Kant's ideas loses their own validity by straying from humanity and into divinity.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Trans. H.J. Paton, New York: Harper and Row, 1964, 127.
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, trans. Schneewind, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1982, 72.
This is the complete article, containing 1,406 words
(approx. 5 pages at 300 words per page).
