Kant and Hobbes had different views on the question of morality. Kant had a more rationalist view of morality, while Hobbes was more empirical in this regard. However, both started from a subjective point of view. The understandings of these two philosophers differ in terms of reason, understanding of human nature, and understanding of morality. This article will present the differences between Kant and Hobbes and propose a debate on the theme of punishment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay According to Kant, there is a standard on which morality must be based, and this for him was the categorical imperative , a way of putting you into the moral framework. Through this, the moral responsibility falls on you as a person, rather than as a ruling sovereign. This subjective understanding of morality rejects the conventional understanding that sets a framework of codes of behavior. By arguing in this sense, Kant grants supremacy to reason, as opposed to the passions. Kant held that each person was equal to the other, because each had free will, which was not determined with the other. According to Kant, it is important to act according to what is considered right, rather than what is considered good. Every person has the ability to choose to act or not act responsibly. Pure practical reason was at the heart of this understanding. Kant did not want higher forms of power (government, police, etc.) to intervene or have to take force, he wanted the person to be held accountable and make logical and rational moral decisions. He believed that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect and that no one should be seen as a “thing.” Kant also did not believe that anyone is inherently vicious, but commits criminal acts under pressure. According to Hobbes, morality arises from the laws of nature and is discovered by reason. The sole purpose of these laws is the preservation of human life. Morality is therefore created at the moment of the conclusion of a social contract. The understanding is illuminated by the fact that in the state of nature, before civilization, human beings were totally violent and hostile to each other, being in a state of war at all times. It therefore became important for people to give power to a central figure who would regulate people's conduct. According to Hobbes, the reason it becomes easy for people to reach consensus on morality is that there is an inherent quest for peace, which is the result of opposing conflict and hostilities, which is the natural state of humanity. human person. The social contract results from the abandonment of certain natural rights in the name of peace. Morality as such does not exist until the conclusion of the social contract, which allows people to unite for a common purpose. It is designed to promote human survival and comfortable living. He believed that the social contract survives through aggressive law enforcement. Punishment is perceived differently by the two thinkers. Hobbes believed in deterrence, that is, the inhibition of criminal behavior through fear, especially of punishment. Kant believed in retributive justice: you get what you get in life, when you do something good you will be rewarded, but when you do something bad you will be punished. Kant also believed in proportionality: when you are punished, the punishment should fit the crime committed. Kant believed that the use of deterrence..