e on the concept of human will. The essential difference between Hume and Kant that affected their whole thinking on the matter of morality was each one's belief about the autonomy of the will. Hume believed that reason is primarily the slave of the passions. Morals excite passions and produce or prevent actions and reason is unimportant in this equation. Hume believed that the rules of morality could not be conclusions of reason. Hume proclaimed that although reason can judge notions, ideas and matters of fact, the most noticeable results never persuade us to action as much as the slightest emotion or feeling can do. Hume proclaimed that we cannot derive ought from is -- that is, the view that statements of moral obligation cannot simply be deduced from statements of fact. (Hume, 2001) Hume believed no data regardless of reliability or fact ever required a moral obligation or a result in action. Hume upheld that reason is, and ought to be the slave of the passions (Hume, 2001) Hume derived that human emotion flows from us naturally without the interference of reason. However, Kant saw the will as fully independent and needing no external sources for motivation making it possible to act out of reason alone. Kant believed reasoning can determine that some option is good or required and in doing so, it presents itself as a command or a judgment to act accordingly whether one wants to or not. Kant believed reason could require us to act in a specific way. He shows this by using imperative statements. The hypothetical imperative or rule that if you wish to achieve something; then you ought to do a specific action to achieve the predetermined goal. Kant felt that this was an action based on a condition or purpose and had no moral worth. Kant believed that moral worth requires action without the conditional purpose, and felt this could be found in the form of the categorical imperative or unconditional law that applies to all which requir...
