Question

explain how hume and kant differ on knowledge of the law of cause and effect. which view seems more plausible to you? why?

Answer 1

David Hume and Immanuel Kant have contrasting views on the knowledge of the law of cause and effect. Hume believes it is based on observation and experience, while Kant argues it is a necessary principle of the mind. Kant's view seems more plausible to me because it provides a rational foundation for understanding causality.

Step-by-step explanation:

David Hume and Immanuel Kant had different views on the knowledge of the law of cause and effect. Hume believed that knowledge of causality is based on observation and experience, and that we can never know if causation is a necessary connection between events. Kant, on the other hand, argued that knowledge of cause and effect is not derived from experience, but is a necessary and universal principle of the mind. He believed that our knowledge of causality is based on the way our minds structure and organize our experiences.

Both views have their strengths and weaknesses. Hume's empirical approach emphasizes the importance of evidence and observation, while Kant's rationalist view highlights the role of the mind in shaping our understanding of the world. Personally, I find Kant's view more plausible because it provides a rational foundation for our knowledge of cause and effect, and it allows for a more systematic and structured approach to understanding the world.

Answer 2

Hume offers an empirical explanation of the moral judgments made in “common life”, which he takes to be part of his broader science of human nature. This is his focus. By contrast, though Kant makes observations about the “common” use of reason in morality (e.g., G 4:399), this is not his focus.