The phenomenon of morality and its origin has been a topic of debate throughout history. Specifically, the world-famous philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant come to a very significant disagreement about the history of morality, the source of its origin and its universality. But, upon deeper analysis, it is evident that their divergent conclusions arise from very distinct methods of testing, analyzing, and using data. Hume, on the one hand, seems to trust in experience rather than reason and subsequently offers a more experientially based derivation of morality. Kant, on the other hand, bases his entire argument on a logical progression and remains in the metaphysical world of abstract thought and theoretical reasoning. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay To begin, in his piece, Inquiry into the Principles of Morals, Hume states that human feeling is the origin of morality and is based on experience contrived evidence and the fact that feeling produces the same actions as morality for defend his claim. Human feeling is mainly dominated by the feeling of benevolence, which for Hume is what motivates a person to act in the interests of the species and allows them to become aware of and connect with others. Therefore benevolence is also the source of man's social character and is what drives man to create society. But Hume never uses reason to demonstrate that benevolence is what gave rise to morality, nor does he fully explain the origin of benevolence. Instead, it assumes that benevolence is intrinsic to man because it claims that everyone has experienced it, felt its pressures, and can identify with it. Therefore, his evidence comes largely from experience. But, interestingly enough, Hume also argues that it is the lack of universality of experience that causes different conceptions of morality to be produced by societies. On the contrary, human feeling is common to all because no one can refute another's claim to have a feeling and all humanity claims to feel the same feelings or at least recognize them. But how can we trust Hume when he demonstrates feeling in universal experience, but then dismisses any possibility of universal experience when he attributes the experience to divergent notions of morality? This is the part of Hume's argument that requires faith in his way of thinking. When Hume argues that experiences are not universal, it is because chance, feeling, and reason combine to form their content. Although feeling is universal, chance and circumstances cause experiences to differ, and the unique use of individual reason creates a unique perception. But when he claims that the specific experience of feeling is universal, his only evidence lies in the familiarity of feelings that all human beings seem to have. However, it never acknowledges that what one individual considers to be a feeling, such as anger, may be very different from the actual experience another has under the same feeling label, anger. Therefore, the need to demonstrate that sentimental experiences are truly universal reflects Hume's methodology in drawing conclusions from experience. However, Hume delves into why reason is the wrong method for deriving truth or morality. Since reason is questionable, as is truth in conclusion, it cannot demonstrate the universality of morality, or take credit for the origin of morality. Feeling, on the other hand, does not aim to discern truth, but simply attempts to align actions.