David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In this paper I argue that the ground of this disagreement is different than philosophers have traditionally supposed. On the surface, the disagreement appears to be a matter of substantive moral judgment: Hume admires the sort of person who rushes to the aid of another from motives of sympathy or humanity, while Kant thinks that a person who helps with the thought that it is his duty is the better character. While a moral disagreement of this kind certainly follows from their views, I will argue that the source of the disagreement lies elsewhere, namely in their different conceptions of action and motivation. This difference leads in turn to a surprisingly deep difference in their conception of our relation to other people, and of what it means to interact with other people. It is his conception of human interaction that leads Hume to think that benevolence is natural while there is something artificial about our motives to act justly and to keep our promises. For Kant, on the other hand, no form of adult human motivation is “natural” in Hume’s sense – all adult human motivation involves the agent’s use of nonnatural concepts such as law or reason. But Kant’s theory of interaction grounds another sense in which it is just as “natural” to be motivated to keep our promises and agreements as it is to be motivated to help each other out when we are in need.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bernd Ludwig (2007). Kant, Garve, and the Motives of Moral Action. Journal of Moral Philosophy 4 (2):183-193.
Richard A. Blanke (1985). The Motivation to Be Moral in the Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals. Philosophy Research Archives 11:335-345.
Christine M. Korsgaard (1996). From Duty and for the Sake of the Noble: Kant and Aristotle on Morally Good Action. In Stephen Engstrom & Jennifer Whiting (eds.), Aristotle, Kant, and the Stoics: Rethinking Happiness and Duty. Cambridge University Press
Barbara Herman (1981). On the Value of Acting From the Motive of Duty. Philosophical Review 90 (3):359-382.
Rachel Cohon (2006). Hume on Promises and the Peculiar Act of the Mind. Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (1):25-45.
Neera Badhwar (1993). Altruism Versus Self-Interest: Sometimes a False Dichotomy. Social Philosophy and Policy 10 (1):90-117.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2010). From 'Convention' to 'Ethical Life': Hume's Theory of Justice in Post-Kantian Perspective. Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (1):105-132.
Elizabeth S. Radcliffe (1999). Hume on the Generation of Motives: Why Beliefs Alone Never Motivate. Hume Studies 25 (1-2):101-122.
Added to index2009-06-19
Total downloads254 ( #11,223 of 1,932,461 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #94,262 of 1,932,461 )
How can I increase my downloads?