In this paper I will defend David Hume’s Moral Sense Theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses. Since morals are derived from our emotional responses rather than reason, morals are not objective. Moreover, the emotional basis of morality is empirically proven in recent studies in psychology, areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most active while making a moral judgment. My argument will be in two parts, first that morals are response-dependent, meaning that while reason is still a contributing factor to our moral judgments, they are produced primarily by our emotional responses, and finally that each individual has a moral sense. Morals are not objective because morals are response-dependent—derived from our emotions, or passions, rather than reason. In his argument on the basis of morals in A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume states, “Philosophy is commonly divided into speculative and practical; and as morality is always comprehended under the latter division, ‘tis supposed to influence our passions and actions.” He later argues, “Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be deriv’d from reason[…]Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions” (Hume 1978). At the root of every one of our actions, we find that we will always trace it back to a feeling that caused it. For example, I chose not to lie to my parents about my spending a lot of money because I knew that it would be wrong. It would not only be wrong because my parents have raised me to believe that lying is wrong, but also because I would feel guilty for disrespecting them. Thus, we judge as wrong or bad a... ... middle of paper ... ... 2006. “Doing the Right Thing: A Common Neural Circuit for Appropriate Violent or Compassionate Behavior.” Neuroimage 30: 1069-76. Moll, J., de Oliviera-Souza, R., Eslinger, P.J., Bramati, I.E., Mourao-Miranda, J., Andreiuolo, P.A., and Pessoa, L. 2002. “The Neural Correlates of Moral Sensitivity: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of Basic and Moral Emotions.” Journal of Neuroscience 22: 2730–36. Plato. "504a-519e." Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2004. 1125-137. Prinz, J. J. “Can Moral Obligations Be Empirically Discovered?” Midwest Studies In Philosophy 31 (2007): 271–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1475- 4975.2007.00148.x Raphael, David Daiches. British Moralists, 1650-1800. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. Valdesolo, P., and DeSteno, D. 2006. “Manipulations of Emotional Context Shape Moral Judgment.” Psychological Science 17: 476–77.
David Hume makes a strong affirmation in section IV of an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume states, "I shall venture to affirm as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance attained by reasonings a priori; but entirely from experience." In this statement, when discussing "knowledge of this relation," Hume is referring to the relation between cause and effect. This argument can easily be dismissed as skeptical, for it puts all knowledge of this sort in doubt. However, Hume does not hastily doubt that this knowledge is not a priori, as a skeptic would. Instead Hume offers a sound argument as to why cause and effect knowledge can not be a priori, and thus his argument is not skeptical at all.
David Hume sought out to express his opinion in which sentiment is seen as the grounding basis for morality. This sentiment is acting as the causal reasoning for why we have morality or act in a moral way. David Hume, as well as Kant, believe that causal necessity governs humans lives and actions. In this essay, I will show how Hume, provides an argument in favor of sentiment being the foundation of our morality, rather than his predecessors who favored reason. To do this, I will begin to outline Hume’s theories, highlighting his main ideas for grounding morality on sentiment and bring up some possible counterarguments one of which being Immanuel Kant's theories and how that might potentially weaken his argument and how the roots of morality
Whilst discussing the basics of moral philosophy, every philosopher will undoubtedly come across the works of Immanuel Kant and David Hume. As they progress into the thoughts of these two famous philosophers they will notice the stark contrast between the pair. Quite simply put, Kant’s works emphasizes that reason is the main source of human being’s morality, while Hume’s work depicts human desire as the driving source of morality. Obviously these two points of view are very different, but it is difficult to say which of these philosophers are more correct than the other.
The next major theory on how one obtains knowledge comes from David Hume’s Empiricism. Empiricism itself is the idea that all knowledge obtained is done so through senses or experiences throughout life. This theory itself clearly contrasts with rationalism as rationalists believe at no point that they should gain knowledge through senses/experiences. Furthermore, as an empiricist, he does not value anything that is not attained through experience. One of Hume’s beliefs is the idea that everyone is born with a mental “blank slate”. Because all knowledge we gain is thought to be gained through experience (which a newborn would have none at that point) the “slate” starts as blank and will filled in as the person learns through experiences. This
David Hume sought out to express his opinion on ethics in which sentiment is seen as the grounding basis for morality. These theories can be seen as a response to the theories proposed by philosophers where they believed reason is considered to be the basis for morality. In this following essay I will show how Hume provides an argument in favor of sentiment being the foundation of our morality, rather than reason. To do this, I will begin to outline Hume’s ethical theories, highlighting his main ideas for grounding morality on sentiment and bring up some possible counterarguments that might potentially weaken this argument.
Megan Darnley PHIL-283 May 5, 2014 Compatibilism and Hume. The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions is on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event is because of some prior cause.
With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there
One of the most persistently asked and perpetually unanswered questions in psychology is the question of morality. What is it, how does it develop, and where does it come from? A basic definition of morality is “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam-Webster). Based on the definition, the question then becomes even more complicated; How do people decide what is right and what is wrong? Research has examined this from many different angles, and two distinct schools of thought have emerged. One centers on the Lockian idea of children as blank slates who must be taught the difference between right and wrong and what it means to be moral, while the other espouses a more Chomskian perspective of a preset system of basic rules and guidelines that needs only to be activated. So what does this mean for humans and humanity? Are we born tabula rasa or are we born with an innate sense of good and evil? For those researching this topic, the question then becomes how to most effectively theorize, experiment and interpret human morality.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionis approach to moral
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, trans. Schneewind, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1982, 72.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
David Hume is considered a reputable and influential philosopher whose empirical approach provided a basis for a number of moral principles. Although the complexity of Hume’s expressive nature and intellectual thought is somewhat mindboggling to most readers, the importance of the account of justice can be seen as significant and of relevance to many values and morals in even today’s society. Hume’s discussion of moral virtues in his book An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals addresses the importance of justice in terms that relate to its sole foundation and further exemplification of moral distinctions.
Morality is central to all rational beings, whereby a moral action is one determined by reason, rather than our personal desires as suggested by Kant (1785) in contrast to Hume. (1738). Furthermore, Kant suggests that an action is moral only on account of its being reasoned, therefore the moral worth of an action is determined by its motives and not by its consequences. Exploring the works of Hume (1738) and Kant(1785) on morality and ethics, we will ask the question whether we should do what is morally right, even when you could profit by doing something wrong, and furthermore, we shall discuss morality as a type of game, yet something you cannot opt out of, as something Foot describes as 'inescapable'. (Foot 1972: 311).
David Hume is considered to be one of the big three British empiricists, along with Hobbes and Locke, and lived near the end of the Enlightenment. The Catholic Church was losing its control over science, politics and philosophy and the Aristotelian world view was being swallowed up by a more mechanistic viewpoint. Galileo found the theory provided by Copernicus to be correct, that our earth was not the center of everything, but the celestial bodies including the earth circled the sun. Mathematicians abounded. Pascal developed the first mechanical calculator and Newtonian physics was breaking new ground. Not even the arts were immune. Within the same era Mary Shelley authored Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus. The main theme for this novel was the effects science was having on humanity. The scientific revolution was well underway and set to become the new religion. Hume attempted to strip the omnipotence of both divinity and reason and place it squarely on human experience. To try and secure anything beyond our realm of natural human experience is an exercise in futility. We are trapped behind the wall of human sensory experience. Hume suggests that complex ideas come from simple ideas, and ideas come from impressions. These impressions are arrived at through perception. “Ideas produce the images of themselves in new ideas; but as the first ideas are supposed to be derived from impressions, it still remains true, that all our simple ideas proceed either mediately or immediately, from their correspondent impressions.” Hume uses “mitigated skepticism” with surgical precision. While this is the same methodology that Rene Descartes used to arrive at his well known declaration “I think therefore I am” it has drastically different...
In Appendix I., Concerning Moral Sentiment, David Hume looks to find a place in morality for reason, and sentiment. Through, five principles he ultimately concludes that reason has no place within the concept of morality, but rather is something that can only assist sentiment in matters concerning morality. And while reason can be true or false, those truths or falsities apply to facts, not to morality. He then argues morals are the direct result of sentiment, or the inner feeling within a human being. These sentiments are what intrinsically drive and thus create morality within a being.