We are going to look at the moral philosophies of three thinkers: David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Nietzche.
I tried to explain why I think these three go together. Roughly, they all agree on what the central issues in ethics are but they disagree about some of the most important points.
Kevin pushed me to be more specific. In particular, he suggested a table. That is something I had aspired to do at the end rather than the beginning; a lot of this class is going to be a learning experience for me as well as for you.
Still, Kevin is right. I should put down some markers at the outset. This is how I think it is going to break down.
First, some basic differences.
| Thinker | Target of Morality | Source | Central Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hume | motivation | sentiment | benevolence |
| Kant | motivation | reason | duty, because it is right |
| Nietzsche | motivation | resentment | punishment |
Here are some more specific topics.
| Thinker | Free Will | Religion and ethics | Relativism | view of morality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hume | compatibilist | separate | sort of | sunny |
| Kant | libertarian | related, complex | absolutely not | strict |
| Nietzsche | unclear | related, sinister | of course! | dark |
This is an informed prediction. I reserve the right to change my mind. And even if I do not, I certainly hope that what I have to say at the end is more nuanced than this! But it is not a bad starting point. Thanks Kevin!
I should say what the free will column means. A compatibilist believes that moral responsibility is compatible with the causal determination of the will. Your behavior might have causes that lie outside of your control, but you are still responsible for what you do on at least some occasions. That is the compatibilist position.
A libertarian believes the opposite: moral responsibility is not compatible with the causal determination of the will. You can be responsible only for what is in your control.
The compatibilist position is the most difficult to understand. It certainly seems to be paradoxical. Hume is clearly a compatibilist, as we will see next week. We will have to see how well he does in making his case.
Kant is a funny kind of libertarian. He thinks that moral responsibility is possible only if we are in control of our behavior, but he also believes that this is possible only if we exist in a different realm than the natural one, which is governed by cause and effect. Compatibilism is hard to understand but this is truly special.
Hey, if it was easy everyone would do it. And I would not have a job. Anyway, who expected free will to be easy? No one! Let’s move on.
Nietzsche does not believe that the will is free from causal determination, but I am not sure if he thinks this bears on questions about moral responsibility, other than ruling out positions like Kant’s. He is not the kind of thinker who devotes much effort to explaining where he fits in tables like the ones above.