David Hume discusses morality in his work, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. While many, including Hume, mistake his approach for morality as ethics, Hume is really describing behavior, which is a psychological task. Immanuel Kant observes the mis-classification, and discusses Hume and the matter in his work, Critique of Pure Reason.
Hume and Kant’s views about morality can definitely be relevantly discussed. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason largely responds to Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume generates an argument for morality from his theory of causality, which Kant strongly disagrees with. Since Kant believes Hume’s causality theory is invalid, Kant discredits Hume’s morality argument as well. In addition to Kant’s argument, one will find that other problems with Hume’s morality exist as well. For one, as Kant points out, Hume’s causality is limited, so one can gather that his morality is invalid, since Hume’s morality stems from his causality theory. Also, Hume’s theory will not function in the active criminal justice system. Finally, as previously mentioned, Hume’s morality describes behavior, which necessarily classifies Hume’s morality as psychology, not ethics.
Hume believes that a cause exists for everything, but that humans are not always aware of causes. Even when humans make inferences based on events that happen repeatedly, such as the sun coming up each day, Hume claims that people cannot be certain that the sun will come out every day just because the sun acted this way in the past. Hume thinks people are only capable of observing one event following the other and that people cannot know causes with the kind of certainty that they can know about certain mathematical claims. Without some kind of empirical evidence for frequent connections, there can be no causal explanation for them, or at least not for those who believe in science. Similarly, Hume’s morality theory necessarily involves empirical evidence. Hume thinks that by observing people’s behavioral patterns, discovering all motives will eventually be possible. By eventually narrowing all motives into a number of different maxims, the ability to predict behavior and that most people are the same will be achievable. For Hume, free will is not a factor related to human behavior. Hume believes that those believing in science will not accept non-causal explanations for events where the cause is uncertain.
While Kant also believes in causality, he does not believe that humans are incapable of grasping and applying the concept. Kant believes that humans are reasonable and that they chronologically categorize events to understand causes. Kant refutes Hume’s causality argument on the grounds that Hume miscategorized mathematics. Kant says that Hume is wrong in classifying mathematics as analytic a priori. Rather, Kant believes math is synthetic a priori because math actually does involve reasoning beyond the concepts in some of its claims, which also accredits humans with reasoning capabilities. Since Hume is wrong about causality, he is necessarily wrong about morality. Kant applies his morality theory in the same manner as his causality theory. Kant believes humans discover causation and can apply morality, which means that Kant believes humans have free will. Kant sees the problems when free will is not assumed.
Kant notices the dilemma with society’s enforcement of punishment on people accused of committing crimes, while simultaneously accrediting criminal actions with justification for many crimes. For example, Kant describes the malicious liar who is blamed for his lies, even though evidence of “bad upbringing” and “evil company” exists (Kant B583). He continues, “And when we say that regardless of his entire previous way of life the perpetrator could still have abstained from the lie, this means only that the lie is directly subject to the force of reason, and reason is not subjected in its causality to any conditions of appearance and of the course of time. And it means, moreover, that although the difference of time can make a principal difference for appearances in regard to one another, it can make no difference for the action in reference to reason, because appearances are not things in themselves and hence are not causes in themselves” (Kant B584). Kant is referring to Hume’s argument that empirical evidence can reveal a person’s morality, which Kant is calling “appearances. Kant does not believe synthetic, empirical evidence alone is sufficient evidence for moral causality. Kant thinks that people use both reason and empirical evidence to apply their morality. Kant explains, “Reason is present to, and is the same in, all actions of the human being in all circumstances of the time” (Kant B584).
Hume is wrong by claiming that morals are empirically based, without applying reason. While people may act unreasonably to some sets of standards, they do not act this way due to other causing events alone; people definitely apply reason to make their decisions, whether they make moral decisions based on the given standards or not. Other events may be contributing factors, but these events are not necessary conditions to create a given phenomenon; this does not even make sense. Hume defines reason differently than Kant too, which should be noted. For Hume, people do not have freedom or necessity. According to Hume, reason is not free, but for Kant, reason is necessarily free. Hume believes that reason is driven by causes that can usually be empirically revealed. Kant holds the opposite opinion. Basically, the problem with Hume’s causation, which entails his morality, is that understanding cause is difficult without assuming human capabilities of reason and free will.
Hume believes there are two main branches of moral philosophy. He says, “The one considers man chiefly as born for action; and as influenced in his measures by taste and sentiment; pursuing one object and avoiding another, according to the value which these objects seem to possess, and according to the light in which they present themselves” (Hume 1). Virtue is the high point in these types of philosophers, according to Hume. Hume then describes the second branch of moral philosophers, stating, “The other species of philosophers consider man in the light of a reasonable rather than an active being, and endeavour to form his understanding more than cultivate his manners. They regard human nature as a subject of speculation; and with a narrow scrutiny examine it, in order to find those principles, which regulate our understanding, excite our sentiments, and make us approve or blame any particular object, action, or behavior” (Hume 1-2). Hume places himself in the second category, as one that meticulously labors over the task of determining the source of human motives that will explain human behavior. While the study of human behavior is important for some areas of study, seeing its relevance to ethics is difficult in the way that Hume describes. Since human behavior is a psychological matter, rather than an ethical one, Hume’s theory for causality does not seem to make sense in relation to ethics.
Kant also thinks that attributing a cause to an action, like Hume does, only shows what people do, and would only be a behavioral study, or something like a current psychological approach. However, Kant feels that such an approach is outside of reasonable human capabilities, and is therefore not possible for humans to do, though Kant does believe people have a tendency to assert causation. While many things can likely be learned from observing one’s behavior and noting causal connections, we really do not know what is going on in someone’s head. We only observe from the outside.
Once again, Hume’s morality just does not work in the way that he describes, since his morality stems from his causality theory. Kant thinks Hume gets causality wrong altogether, therefore one could not even get to applying Hume’s morality, since Kant believes Hume’s causality is invalid. By asserting causality, morality is difficult to apply since ascribing punishment to someone due to his motives would not make since if the assumption is made that a cause exists for everything. Hume’s causality cannot be used in morality because his approach is a psychological, not an ethical technique.
Works Cited
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.
