Hello everybody, I'm going to write a paper comparing two philosophers moral theory and decided to choose Kant and Hume. While I'm closer to Hume's theory myself I could certainly use some different perspectives,

So I thought I'll ask you guys whose theory you prefer yourself and why?

Hi, I'm a young budding philosopher hoping to learn alot from being on this forum, so I've joined this discussion to learn something new.

I find this "moral absolution" interesting. My initial take on it is; that what is "right" and "just" must be complicit with one's previous unconscious/conscious beliefs, particularly regarding loyalties to concepts both physical and metaphysical.

Let me explain with an illustration - If a foreign country X was known to be plotting a severe nuclear attack on country Y (and Y was plotting a similarly devastating attack on X, per Cold War) then "morality" says that;
a) it would be right to disable both plots
b) it would be right to disable X's plot
c) it would be right to disable Y's plot
depending on which side you were on. I know that it initially seems obvious that one should disable both plots in order to create peace, but what if you were a total patriot of country X (such as Socrates was of Athens) then surely it would only be moral to disable Y's plot. Have a think about it, as I'm only offering this up as an idea/response, and it is by no means perfect...

I think this lies in concurrence with Mark's opinion, but I'm not entirely sure. What do you think about all of this?

IT has been suggested that

Kant based his moral theory on reason and thus "the categorical imperative"
"act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

Hume on the other hand based his moral theory on emotion or subjective response to action.
"reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions"
"we cannot derive ought from is....statements of moral obligation can not be deduced from statements of fact"

The famous passage is:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

Yes. I was looking for that passage but couldn't find it. It should be listed on Wikiquote, but it isn't. Do you have a precise cite?

Yes. I was looking for that passage but couldn't find it. It should be listed on Wikiquote, but it isn't. Do you have a precise cite?

The famous passage is:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.