Kant's Response to Hume's Skepticism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Kant's Response to Hume's Skepticism - Essay Example Hence, even though reasoning and experience designate that objects function in a predictable way, this somehow fails to necessarily provide evidence how objects will behave in the near future depending on their former interactions. To ascertain his claims, Hume puts forth the concept that causal affairs belong to two types of knowledge: matters of fact and relations of ideas. In order for anything to bring out idea relations, its divergent must be ludicrous. Hume argues that since relations of thoughts are known via rationale alone, they are vacuous in the sense that they do not declare anything about the planet. On the other hand, every effect is different from its origin; every origin is different from its result. For that reason, an effect cannot be revealed in a casual event or object purely by prior reasoning. It is evidential that Hume was so skeptical in such a way that it is very difficult to understand how objects conduct themselves. You cannot be able to predict a future be havior based on the former. Minds are not like software where you can install a program and run it in a predefined way. Consequently, the strength of this theory is based upon the fact that experience cannot take hold of the casual bond between two objects. It is not a guarantee that one can establish events that will take place in the future. The weakness is in the issue that one cannot dwell in skepticism, as most claims lies on experience, inductive reasoning and probabilistic claims. Moreover, Hume becomes dogmatic in this approach by claiming that we cannot tell casual relationships, and so we should adopt a skeptical stance. Kant responds to Hume's skepticism using various theories, some of which include the moral and ethical theory. In hunt for the essential â€Å"good†, Kant did not accept as a true fact that anything that was inherently happiness, good or pleasure could result out of evil deeds. He did not believe that good character traits as courage, intelligence, ingenuity among others, could all be a medium through which bad deeds were implemented. Thus, he used the word â€Å"good† to mean a resolution to act purely according to one’s duty. Alternatively, Kant argues that if we have pre-determined actions, they cannot be described as gratis and morality doesn’t concern us. According to Kant, it is not possible to determine an objects behavior based on their looks or former behavior. There is a very big difference between appearance and reality. What appears to be good could actually be a result of an evil thought. It is at this point where Kant differs a bit with Hume’s skeptics in the sense that not every idea would result in a bad outcome. On the other hand, living a predetermined way of life would make life lose its moral value. It is evidential that objects behave solely in agreement with their duty. Thus, using an explanation, Kant believed that a person could concentrate only upon his/her duties. Divine pr e-formation theory According to this theory, objects came into being in a very divine manner. Initially, there was nothing in the universe, but eventually, there came to be. Kant's argument that evil mind could as well as bear good results is the statement that needs to be contrasted with this theory. Heaven and earth were made without witnesses; we cannot necessary conclude that the maker had another motive which was not positive. Whoever created the world might have had good reason of utilizing the empty space that was initially in place. Kant argues that good character doesn’t automatically mean that one is good. Further, bad actions in the past do not proof that the