Essay on Morality: Created of Goodwill or the Force of Shared Goals

Introduction

Hobbes and Kant had a different understanding regarding the issue of morality due to their different thought system. Hobbes took an empirical view on morality while Kant had a rationalistic view on the issue. According to Hobbs, every individual is governed with his or her own reason, and he or she has nothing which can be used in protecting one's life from the enemies (Lloyd, 2009). Kant argues that there is a standard in which morality bases which is categorical imperative. In other words, he believes that morality is rationality. With regards to the standard, he believed that it could be founded intuitions in sui generis or rational principles of desire. The different arguments between the two philosophers are shown in this paper, the pros, and cons of their arguments, and the most compelling argument.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Kant has an interesting understanding of morality that the will that is central in morality is independent of the other wills meaning it cannot depend on another for determination (Johnson & Cureton, 2004). In short, the will is free from creating laws which bind it. The argument is essential since goodwill should establish laws that govern it in society. On the other hand, on the force of shared goals, Hobbs believes that an individual's actions can amount on the way it influences the person in the end (Mintz, 2010). Furthermore, the moral duties we perform are as a result of self-interest instead of being justified as being morally wrong or right.

The main theme for Hobbes on the issue of morality is materialism. He argues that finite bodies can only affect the other finite bodies and that every person will depend on their determination (Lloyd, 2009). Therefore, the philosopher argues that thinking is a way based on freedom and desire to be skeptical shows that the human is special and thinking rises above the world. Consequently, Kant considers obligation, law, and duty as the central part of morality. Kant's argument is advantageous since, in the past, every individual used to be equal to each other since every individual has free will that had not been determined by the other. Thus, it is better to act with regards to what is understood as being good since goodness needs clarification.

According to Hobbs, thinking comes about when the brain has the sensation that transfers to a word and if the sensations get tied to the word you can now make a memory association between word and sensation and the word becomes detached the word is now a physical memory (Mintz, 2010). In short, thinking the words play out logically. Kant, on the other hand, argues that once an individual gets the logic, there are rules that show something is valid or correct. Also, once a person has good morality, he or she can justify or explain any other rule. In most cases, interpretations are made on nature or experience.

According to Hobbes, people come to a consensus with regards to morality to get the peace that leads to the opposition of continuous hostilities and conflicts that is a human being's nature. The social contract is introduced due to the surrendering of natural rights to get peace. Therefore, morality does not happen before a social contract is made. Generally, human beings lack moral principles due to the natural state of competition and fight of morality. This issue made Hobbs believe that morality based on mutual consent and not desires. Kant argues that there is a standard in which morality bases which is categorical imperative (Johnson & Cureton, 2004). In other words, he believes that morality is rationality. With regards to the standard, he believed that it could be founded intuitions in sui generis or rational principles of desire.

Hobbs believes that morality comes up dues to natural laws and revealed by reason. The objective of the laws is preserving human beings' lives (Lloyd, 2009). Thus, morality is created when making a social contract, and the understanding is well-versed through the fact that in nature before the introduction of civilization, humans used to be hostile and violent to each other as they were in wars all the time. This issue made it essential to give a central person power to help in regulating individuals conduct. Subsequently, Kant argues that every conduct should be ordered in a way that results in a universal law so that other individuals can apply the conduct easily who get themselves in the same circumstances. To him, any conduct that violates the above principles can result in immoral and wrong conduct. Also, he believed that good is irrelevant to morality and the only way a correct judgment based on morality was a priori with pure practical reason means.

Kant believes that moral acts refer to the acts that are conditionally right in that anyone who finds himself in the same situations can act in the same way (Johnson & Cureton, 2004). It is the responsibility of people to act not according to the set rules or inclinations, but it entails conducting activities with no gain for us which is the only way of preserving humanity. Hobbs believes that politics and morality are derived from physics. Moreover, he understands that thinking seems to be free but its matter in motion. Thinking is a reckoning, and it is universal above the world. Furthermore, radical free will enables one to choose his or her purpose (Mintz, 2010). It gives individuals to choose to be good or bad and can rise above situations. In most cases, the body in motion continues unless opposed by the body of equal or more force and then dominates. This applies to the desires of humans.

Both Kant's and Hobbe's argument on morality have limitations. The arguments of the two authors reduce morality to something that humans can easily manipulate. Kant argues that desire is an essential item in morality and this should not be the case since it requires universality of desire. On the other hand, the view of considering self-interest as a central part of morality by Hobbes is misinformed. People have an interest in different things, and that should not be considered as part of morality. The fact that something that is regarded as proper in one part of the world is regarded as proper in the other parts of the world irrespective of their beliefs is an indication that there is objectivity that reaches beyond the determination of humans.

Conclusion

Philosophers have different tenets on morality. Kant approached the issue from a subjective way, but his approach was not driven by self-interest as compared to Hobbs. Even though Kant agrees with Hobbes on the issue that state of nature cannot exist if there is no proper authority, he argues that it does not exist since every individual act out of duty. According to me, I agree with Hobbs argument because it relates to the current human experiences. Throughout humanity's history, humans are considered individualistic. The issue is even evident in the current society in which property is regarded as self-worth measure. From Hobbs point of view, if there were no laws and governments, then it would be difficult to live in this world.

References

Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2004). Kant's moral philosophy.

Lloyd, S. A. (2009). Morality in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes: Cases in the Law of Nature. Cambridge University Press.

Mintz, S. I. (2010). The Hunting of Leviathan: seventeenth-century reactions to the materialism and moral philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Cambridge University Press.