Kant vs. Hume: Comparing Enlightenment Ethics

Kant and Hume, both prominent authors of the 18th-century Enlightenment, held differing ethical views. The comparison between them is often presented as follows: Kant's ethics are formal, while Hume's are material. Kant focuses on intentions, while Hume emphasizes ends. Kant's ethics are rooted in virtue, while Hume's are concerned with happiness.

Kant argued that reason should determine the will. Conversely, Hume posited that feelings dictate the will, informing us about what is good or bad. Hume famously stated, "Reason is the slave of passions," highlighting that reason alone does not drive behavior. Furthermore, their conceptions of reason and feelings diverge significantly.

For Kant, morality cannot be based on feelings but must be grounded in human nature, as universal laws cannot be derived from experience. Hume, on the other hand, believed that reason cannot determine the will.

Formal vs. Material Ethics

The ethical frameworks of both authors differ in character. Kant's ethics are formal, focusing not on what is done but on how it is done – the manner in which the will acts. Therefore, Kant's ethics are concerned with subjective intentions that can be universalized. Hume's ethics are material, emphasizing what should be done and focusing on goals and the facts themselves. Kant criticized material ethics, including Hume's, for establishing universal laws.

Euthanasia: A Case Study

Euthanasia is a topical issue that can be examined through the lens of Kant's and Hume's ethical approaches. Kant's views on suicide, which share similarities with euthanasia, offer insight. There are two basic positions on this issue:

• Against: This position aligns with Kant, who argued that life is a duty and, therefore, must be lived according to reason a priori, without being swayed by inclinations or the pursuit of pleasure.
• For: This position aligns with Hume, who advocated for doing what is best and most useful. In this case, it would be best to escape pain, disability, and death. The majority view today leans towards Hume's perspective.

However, it is crucial to remember that there are different types of euthanasia, and not all are equal. Distinctions can be made between:

• Primary: The person has a terminal illness and wants to die.
• Secondary: The person wants to die despite not being in a critical health situation (e.g., the case of Ramon Sampedro).
• Active: The patient is given medicine that causes death.
• Passive: The person is allowed to die (e.g., "unplugging the machine").
• Personal: The person is conscious and expresses a desire to die.
• Depersonalized: The person is unaware and cannot express an opinion on whether they want to die (e.g., the case of Eluana, who was in a coma).

Rather than taking an absolute position for or against euthanasia, it is more productive to consider the positives and negatives of each type.