 Kant and Hume fundamentally disagree on the question of reason’s authority. Hume assigns reason to a subordinate role, while Kant takes reason to be the highest normative authority. However, it is important not to misunderstand the nature of their opposition. Hume offers an empirical explanation of the moral judgments made in “common life”, which he takes to be part of his broader science of human nature. This is his focus. By contrast, though Kant makes observations about the “common” use of reason in morality (e.g., G 4:399), this is not his focus. He says relatively little about what is going on in our heads or the surrounding social environment when we make moral judgments. As noted above, Kant at least entertained the possibility that sentimentalism provides the best empirical explanation of our patterns of approval and disapproval (NF 19:117 #6626). What Kant insists on is that such responses can be justified only by pure reason, which is the only faculty capable of understanding the unconditional necessity of the moral law’s commands. Emotion or feeling plays a crucial role in guiding our application of the law to particular maxims in concrete circumstances, but feeling’s role is fully subordinate to reason’s (Sensen 2017: 135–137).