To begin, the statement that David Hume's ethical theory is superior to Immanuel Kant's is simply baseless and false. In Kant's system, truly moral actions are ones that are held to be universally good. Hence, only people who act in a way that fits the categorical imperative (i.e. people who act in such a way that their maxims should become universal law) can be considered completely moral. Secondly, a system of morality based on feeling and experiences, such as that of Hume, has many faults, for one, feelings often lead people to do immoral actions. Hence, Kant's rational approach to ethics is a much safer system. This is proven through Kant's a priori vs. a posteriori explanation. In brief, a priori means relating to, or derived by self-evident propositions and a posteriori means relating to, or derived by reasoning from experience. In times when something unprecedented occurs, however, experiences are of no use, and thus, the broader definition of a priori reasoning is most useful. A third major point on which Kant's beliefs are superior to Hume's regards the Kantian Kingdom of Ends. In such a kingdom, Kant believes that all people have the right to be treated as an end, rather than a means. Clearly, no person wants to be treated as a means, and therefore, Hume's moral system based on utility is problematic. In closing, it is widely known that a person's feelings change frequently. Hence, what once seemed moral to a person in Hume's system can change and become immoral as their feelings fluctuate. Thus, we Kantians strongly believe in our motto as a guide to our moral happiness: "Feelings are fickle, reason is forever!!!".