Morality is a very elusive concept. Why would we want to be moral, when being immoral usually gets us what we want with less effort? The confusion is compounded by the varying degrees of morality displayed by people. It is because of these reasons that the greatest philosophers have always disagreed on its source. Hume sees it as being derived purely from experience and sympathy, Kant feels it must come from rationality, and Hobbes sees it as self-motivated, but the differences don’t end there. They also differ on the role of reason in morality, what is right and wrong, and the true nature of humans. In the following paragraphs I’m going to discuss their concepts of morality and how they differ in the previous categories.
As an empiricist, all of Hume’s ideas come from his perceptions of the world around him. His most well known view is that reason is the “slave of the passions”, meaning it is motivationally inert. “Reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will” (Hume, p. 1). It is useful only in discovering matters of fact and relations of ideas. For this reason, it still plays a role in action, by determining the best course, just not in motivation. The only thing that can motivate us to act is a passion or an instinct. These passions come from good and bad feelings we get towards ideas that are created from experience. We act toward good feelings and avoid bad feelings. Reason’s roll in morality, for Hume, is also very limited. Emotions are the true determiner of morality. If an action or trait elicits negative feelings in observers, it is considered an immoral vice. If it elicits positive feelings it is a moral virtue. These virtues are inherent because you cannot derive an “ought” statement from an “is” statement. The desire for morality, however, stems from our sympathy response, which actually allows us to feel the same emotions others feel, depending on how similar we are to them. Many virtues are natural, meaning they...