Reference no: EM133583394

Problem: In the second Critique, Kant argues that for morality to be possible, pure reason must become practical-i.e., pure reason must be able to motivate us to act independently of any needs or desires we might happen to have. He takes this position in direct contrast to Hume, who argues in the Treatise of Human Nature (T 2.3.3), that reason is motivationally inert. So for Hume, the only way that we can be moved to act is by caring about something, seeing it as valuable, and so as desiring it (in some sense). Reason, then, merely helps desire to achieve its end (i.e., to serve as a slave to the passions). Who do you think is right, and why? In answering, be sure to explain what each thinks reason is, emotion is, and why reason can (or cannot) set its own ends (to see something as valuable and so as something to bring it about). (Hint: in answering, don't get lost in the details of Kant or Hume's theory. You need not summarize them both in their entirety-you don't have enough space even if you could. Instead, think about what reason is for each, and how their different conceptions enable one to say that reason can motivate, while the other can't. Same for the passions. What is it about how each thinks of passion that reason may or may not be involved?)