● Hume’s moral sense theory posits that moral distinctions are not derived from reason

● Instead, moral distinctions are derived from moral sentiments that are:
○ From self-love (self-interest, feelings) but at the same time, recognizing that
we have a strong “connexion” with society
○ So we are not only limited to our own self-love, but we are
concerned with the feelings and sentiments of others as well
○ This is what Hume calls “fellow feeling”
○ We feel concern for that which appeals to our sympathy
● Because we cannot be indifferent to our own interests, and the interests of others,
utility pleases
○ What is useful for me, and what is useful for everyone else
● This means that public utility is the sole origin of justice
○ Everything which promotes the interest of society must communicate
pleasure, and
○ What is pernicious give uneasiness
● From this, we can conclude that reason cannot be the foundation of morality, because
it does not move us in the way that sympathy can
● This is against moral rationalism
○ Which forwards that moral principles can be known a priori, through reason
alone
○ Hume present a counter argument to moral rationalism
○ Because Hume posits that moral rationalism makes a big jump from a
descriptive is to a prescriptive ought
■ We cannot argue that an argument is valid just because things should be
different from the way they are, or that certain things are to remain the
way that they are, to compare
● Example: I am lying to my mom. My mom will get upset. I ought not
to lie to my mom. There is a big jump because the ought is not derived
from the is but is rather a goal for the thing that is in-between –
upsetting mom
● Now, Kant posits something different. Instead of focusing on sympathy, he instead
focuses on the dictate of reason to move us to do what is moral.

● Kant’s deontology is the measurement of the intrinsic worth of

actions based on duty or obligation; it is deontological because it
focuses on the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the
actions themselves and not the consequences
○ Kant’s CI becomes a supreme principle of morality because when we act
autonomously on maxims that can be universalized, we treat human
beings as ends and not merely as means
○ Reason is the sufficient reason for acting in this way and treating others
as such
○ First formulation: Universalizable
■ Act only in accordance with that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it become a universal
law
■ This formulation refers to the universalizability of the moral law
■ It appeals to the universal imperative of duty
■ We find that when a maxim that has exceptions is made universal,
and it contradicts itself, it is no longer tenable
■ It must be a maxim without exceptions
○ Second formulation: Human-as-end
■ Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own
person as in the person of every other, always at the
same time as end and never merely as means
■ Thus, the rational faculty is the end in itself
 ■ Kant is not saying that we should NEVER use the person of every
other as a means. Simply, he says it should not stop at their
treatment as a means. The goal of the activity should be the
development of the other person
■ Thus it is at the same time an objective principle from which we
can derive a supreme practical ground
○ Third formulation: Autonomy of the will
■ Act such that you recognize the will of each person as a
universally legislating will
● The will is the faculty of determining itself to action in
accordance with the representation of certain laws
■ Thus all practical legislation is grounded objectively and
subjectively
■ Objectively – in the rule its universalizability, which makes it
capable of being a law
■ Subjectively – the subject of every end is the rational being
■ From this follows the: idea of the will of every rational being as a
will giving universal law
■ Such that the will is not only subject to the law, but is also
legislating to itself
■ Thus, the human will is a will legislating universally through all
its maxims
● Kant’s deontology measures the intrinsic worth of actions based on duty or
obligation. What is essentially good about an action results from its disposition,
whatever the result may be.
● Mill’s Utilitarianism uses happiness as a standard, where right and wrong
actions are evaluated based on what is able to bring the greatest happiness,
because happiness is the only desirable end.
● This is the key difference between Kant’s deontology and Mill’s utilitarianism:
○ Kant’s deontology focuses on the rightness or wrongness of
actions based on actions themselves
○ Mill’s utilitarianism focuses on the rightness or wrongness of
actions based on the consequences of actions
● Mill’s utilitarian calculus takes into account:
○ The greatest good for the greatest number; but his qualitative use of the
calculus involves -
○ Not just quantity; that is, the intensity or duration of pleasure or pain
■ Quality or kind must also be assessed
■ Such that we analyze the extent of that intensity and duration in
temporal and spatial aspects
○ This is because utilitarianism is not simply confined to:
■ One’s own personal pain or happiness and,
■ Not only to this moment
○ Thus in considering the qualitative features of an experience, there are
some kinds of pleasure that are more desirable and more valuable than
others
■ There may be more desirable pleasures that one would choose
even if there is a greater amount of discontent that may
accompany it
■ This is because both quantity and quality are taken into account
■ The qualities that are more valuable are those that
develop and exercise the higher human capacities; that
which satisfy the higher faculties