Kant: The subject of personal identity and moral agency are quite contentious these days. Moral agency is the ability for an individual to make moral decisions based on their understanding of right and wrong, I believe an absolutionist approach towards morality is the best approach. People have a free will, which gives them the right to make whatever decisions they want. Without some form of rules to guide behavior, individuals can easily justify wrong actions such as theft and murder.
Hume: I understand your point, but I believe individuals act in a certain way to serve one’s unique needs. I have a skeptical approach towards the concept of personal identity because it is hard to define. Personal identity is synonymous with self, and it refers to the totality of one’s consciousness (Hume, 2012). As an individual, I always stumble upon some perception of me, I am made of different things, though there are common aspects of myself that I cannot miss. Regardless, I believe that personal actions have particular causes, and in certain situation the causes do not involve observing the rules established by the society. Individuals are guided by motives, which produce action resulting in some form of cause-effect relationship.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Kant: I beg to disagree, I believe personal identity/ self does exist. As you have pointed out, consciousness is the key to personal identity, and the body is not a part of personal identity. However, you just said that personal identity is not defined because you have been looking in the wrong place, personal identity cannot be found in the perception, rather it is behind the different perceptions that we have.
Hume : Regardless of whether the concept of personal identity is in our perceptions or behind our perceptions, human beings have different reasons behind their perceptions. Morality cannot be triggered by rationality or some form of rules only, rather it is triggered by a passion. An individual feeling/ desire causes action, however, the outcome of the action can determine whether one is a moral agent or not. Morality is embedded in an individual’s values, but rationality also plays an important role in guiding behavior.
Kant: The consequences of one’s action should not be used to judge whether one is a moral agent or not. There is a supreme principle of morality, and only those who do the right thing out of duty are considered moral agents. However, I can relate the concept of personal identity with morality, in that a person is considered good or bad depending on their motivation, not their consequences of their actions. Hence, if one is motivated by negative emotions, his/her actions do not have any moral worth. Moral worth comes into place when individuals do things out of duty even when they do not like it because it is the right thing to do. There are maxims in the society that guide behavior, and only those who overcome their passion/free will and follow the maxims can be considered moral agents. Your skepticism towards the concepts of personal identity and morality can be used as an excuse not to do the right thing.
Hume: I am still against deontology because of its total disregard for outcomes, and in certain situations it goes against human inclinations and common sense. Human beings have instincts, passion and intuitions which form a big part of personal identity, and such concepts affect morality more than rules.
Reference
Hume, D. (2012). A treatise of human nature . Courier Corporation.
