A Comparison Between the Philosophy of Kant and Thomas Hobbes on Punishment

Kant and Hobbes had different understandings of the issue of morality. Kant took a more rationalistic view of morality, while Hobbes was more empirical in this re- gard. However, both proceeded from a subjective point. The understandings of these two philosophers differ in terms of reason, understanding human nature, as well as understanding morality. This paper will display the differences between Kant and Hobbes and provide a debate on the topic of punishment.

According to Kant, there is a standard against which morality should be based, and this for him was the Categorical Imperative, a way to put you in to the moral framework.

Through this, moral responsibility is put on you as a person, instead of a sovereign in power. This subjective understanding of morality rejects the conven- tional understanding which sets a framework of behavioral codes. By arguing along these lines, Kant is placing supremacy on reason, as opposed to passions. Kant ar- gued that every person was equal with the other, because each had free will, which was not determined with the other: According to Kant, it was important to act ac- cording to what was understood to be right, rather than according to what was un- derstood to be good.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Free Essays

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Every person has the capacity to choose to or choose not to act in a responsible way. Pure practical reason was central to this understanding. Kant did not want any higher forms of power (government, police, etc to interfere or have to take force, he wanted the person to be held responsible and to make logical and rational moral decisions.

He believed that everyone was to be treated with dig- nity and respect, no one should be considered a "thing". Kant also did not believe that anyone is vicious to the core, but commit criminal acts under diress.

According to Hobbes, morality arises out of the Laws of Nature, and discovered by reason. The sole aim of these laws is the preservation of the lives of the human per- son. Morality is therefore created at the point of the making of a social contract. The understanding is informed by the fact that in the state of nature, before civilization, human beings are totally violent and hostile to each other; being in a state of war at all times. It became important therefore, that persons give power to a central figure, which would regulate the conduct of persons.

According to Hobbes, the reason why it becomes easy for people to come to a con- sensus regarding morality is that there is an inherent quest for peace, which is a re- sult of an opposition of the contrast conflicts and hostilities, which is the natural state of the human person. The social contract comes as a result of a surrender of some of the natural rights for the sake of peace. Morality as such does not exist be- fore the making of the social contract, what allows people to unify for a common purpose. It is designed to promote survival of the human person and commodious living. He believed that the social contract survives through aggressive enforcement of the law.

Punishment is viewed differently by the two thinkers. Hobbes believed in deter- rence, which is the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment. Kant believed in retributive justice, you get what you earn in life, when you do some- thing good you will be rewarded but when you do something bad you will be pun- ished. Kant also believed in proportionality, when you are punished the punishment must fit the crime committed. Kant believed that using deterrence would lead to emotional trauma. Kant separates private and public, while Hobbes would argue that law and morality are one in the same. Kant would say as human beings we have ra- tional autonomy, we have to think about our own duties and act appropriately in moral law. Hobbes argues that human beings should be bound to a social contract. Hobbes said that the social contract survives through aggressive enforcement of the law.

When it came to punishment, Kant believed that the crime would inevitably pun- ish itself in whatever means necessary based on that specific criminal, while Hobbes took a more deliberate approach and brutally punished the criminal in order to scare others into following the law.