Comparing Hume And Kant's Moral Theory

Both Hume and Kant made an important break from other logicians in putting forward a morality that does not include a higher being or god, for a man to identify his moral duty.
Our fine sense does not tell us what something is morally wrong. According to Hume, the moral theory was based on his belief only reason can never cause action. What is going on well our five-sense convey sensory information to our mind and we get bad feelings, or we may not but in many cases, we will get a bad feeling, so we see something happened . Hume definite virtue is always convoyed by a feeling of desire, and vice by a bad feeling or pain. We are forced to commit a virtuous action because it makes pleasing feelings, and we kind of avoid doing a vicious act because
Kant uses deontological ethics to base his morality on reason alone. Kant said we do get feelings but not the feeling that tells us something is morally wrong, in so Kant discuss what happened when we make false Promises; make a promise with the intention not to keep it ? Kant’s first example of how a man in need finds himself to force to borrow some money he needs, and he knows that he will not be able to repay it back. The principle of duty derived from the previous analysis is that of a person hoping to escape financial struggle by borrowing money on the pretense that he will repay. However, he sees that he will not get what he needs unless he promises to apply it even he will Gove a lie promise with in fixed of time. In this example, can be stated as follows. When I need money, I will give a lie promise to a leader to get what I need.
According to Kierkegaard that one can’t have a true religious faith without being completely committed to it . However, one can’t be fully committed to any belief which is based upon some inquiry in which one recognizes any possibility of a future need to review the results Kierkegaard explained go to true church and pray to true God, but he doesn’t in a false spirit then he said the pagan who is worshipping in idol, but it’s completely committed to this for example, someone who going to church every Sunday. However, he keeps looking to his watch wanted time to go fast because he feels boring and he is not truly that commit to it. Another example, think of the other headhunter guy in island, worshipping he is so passionate about this he is prepared to die for this belief, so Kierkegaard said where is the most proof? Is the guy who is going to the motions or the guy going to motions or the guy have a lot commit. Kierkegaard said the object of the way of knowing does not involve inspect an important in our self . For example, when I am willing to do something I will be commit about that things that I want. So, the different of being commit of something with our heart taking of the personal stand to what we committee and we have knowledge something is true rational but not commit to it. According Kierkegaard said the subjective way of