1. Explain a Kantian response to the amoralist. Justify fully your answer.

An amoralist is indifferent to moral demands, disregarding the concept of ‘ought’, in reference to behaviors or considerations that do not immediately concern him. For an amoralist, morality would depend on the consequences of his actions. Kant, on the other hand, argues that moral value lies in our motives, and our actions are ends in themselves.

Kant proceeds from the premise that as rational beings, our morality is based on reason. our actions can be considered moral or immoral to the extent that they are reasoned. We have full control only over our motives, not the consequences of our actions, so our autonomous will can only approve or disapprove of motives. Kantian ethics rely on a universalist conception of reason and morality, hence, this applies to all people regardless of individual differences (e.g. culture, age, sex, race) and experiences. For instance, lying is wrong no matter the circumstance (as opposed to lying mowhere ay if it leads to good results).

2. Explain David Hume's position on morality and the passions. Why does he
claim that reason is a slave of the passions? Does he reject practical
reasoning? Would Hume's position support morality as we currently
understand it? If so, why? If not, why not?

Hume denies that reason plays a determining role in motivating or discouraging behavior. Instead, he believes that the determining factor in human behavior is passion. Hume concludes that reason alone cannot motivate anyone to act. Rather, reason helps us arrive at judgments, but our own desires motivate us to act on or ignore those judgments. Therefore, reason does not form the basis of morality—it plays the role of an advisor rather than that of a decision-maker.

Discussion Question: Consider again the swimming pools case with th...