Patrick HanniganMoral PhilosophyJanuary 2014Kant's Reason Vs. Hume's DesireWhen discussing the basics of moral philosophy, any philosopher will undoubtedly come across the works of Immanuel Kant and David Hume. As they progress through the thoughts of these two famous philosophers, they will notice the stark contrast between the two. Simply put, Kant's works emphasize that reason is the primary source of human being's morality, while Hume's works depict human desire as the driving source of morality. Obviously these two views are very different, but it is difficult to say which of these philosophers is more right than the other. Immanuel Kant firmly believed in the importance of “pure” moral philosophy. By “pure,” Kant means that the supreme moral principle must be found using the methods of “a priori” moral philosophy, based on principles revealed by the operations of reason and inherent. This is very different from empirical moral philosophy (from Hume's point of view) because it can indeed show us how we should act, not just how we act. One of Kant's most influential works in ethics was his notion of autonomy. Explicitly, Kant describes autonomy as "the property of the will by which it is a law unto itself (independently of any property of the will of the object)" (Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)) . Kant asserts that any moral agent can be autonomous because he gives himself the moral law (he legislates himself) and can prevent or motivate himself from following the law. This ensures that the moral law is not based on the feelings or impulses of the person, which Kant calls the “proper self.” Kant assumes that all non-human animals are heteronomous (as opposed to autonomous), meaning that their will... middle of paper ... force of all morality seems too lifeless and elementless human. Hume's attempt to present morality as a phenomenon makes more sense to me, since morality has been and will continue to be observed and can be reproduced many times. While I think Hume's overall view of morality is more appropriate as a whole, there are certainly divisions in Kant's work that I find very enduring. For example, Kant's rationalization of God through the supreme good of morality seems plausible, since morality without an achievable ideal is certainly useless. However, including God in the discussion of morality is difficult because God is not a natural feeling that could affect judgment. Both positions about morality are both very valid and very different, but I believe that feelings and reason are necessary to find an accurate model of moral philosophy..