Kant and Hobbes had different interpretations of the question of morality. Kant had a more rationalistic view of morality, while Hobbes was more empirical in this regard. However, both proceeded from a subjective point. The understandings of these two philosophers differ in terms of reason, understanding of human nature, and understanding of morality. This article will show the differences between Kant and Hobbes and provide a discussion on the topic of punishment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay According to Kant, there is a standard on which morality should be based, and this for him was the categorical imperative, a way of putting into the moral picture. In this way, moral responsibility is placed on you as a person, rather than as a ruler in power. This subjective understanding of morality rejects the conventional understanding that establishes a framework of behavioral codes. Arguing in this sense, Kant attributes supremacy to reason, as opposed to the passions. Kant argued that each person was equal to the other, because each had free will, which was not determined by the other. According to Kant, it was important to act according to what was considered right, rather than what was considered good. Every person has the ability to choose or not act responsibly. Pure practical reason was central to this understanding. Kant did not want any higher form of power (government, police, etc.) to interfere 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, no one should be considered a “thing.” Kant also did not believe that someone was deeply vicious, but committed criminal acts under threat. 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 the life of the human person. Morality is therefore created when a social contract is stipulated. The understanding is informed by the fact that in the state of nature, before civilization, humans are totally violent and hostile to each other, being at all times in a state of war. It has therefore become important for people to give power to a central figure, who would regulate their conduct. According to Hobbes, the reason why it becomes easy for people to reach a consensus regarding morality is that there is an intrinsic pursuit of peace, which is the result of an opposition between conflict and hostility, which is the natural state of society. human person. The social contract is the result of renouncing some natural rights in the name of peace. Morality as such does not exist before the conclusion of the social contract, which allows people to come together for a common purpose. It is designed to promote human survival and comfortable life. He believed that the social contract survives through aggressive enforcement of the law. Punishment is seen differently by the two thinkers. Hobbes believed in deterrence, which is the inhibition of criminal behavior through fear, above all, of punishment. Kant believed in retributive justice, you get what you earn 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 one is punished the punishment must be appropriate to the crime committed. Kant believed that the use of deterrence would lead to emotional trauma. Kant separates the private from the public, while Hobbes maintains that law and morality are the same.