More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral judgement, ethical decision making
Ethical decision making & moral judgment
Moral judgement and decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In “Morality and Natural Sentiment,” David Hume believes that morality “is more properly felt than judged of” (p. 83). Hume argues that although we are able to identify all the objective evidence pertaining to an immoral situation, we aren’t capable of determining the wrongness of the actions by examining the situation with simply reason, since there is no existing set list of moral judgments. Therefore, morality must be a sentiment, since reason just reveals facts about what happened and how it happened. I agree with Hume in that morality isn’t based on reason, because in order for something to be declared right or wrong, a person has to apply their own personal notions of what counts as virtuous conduct versus vicious conduct. Everyone has
The position of God and misery is a quite difficult position. Hume the author of this book wanted to show that not everything has to involve a God and it is not reasonable to do so. Hume’s characters resemble points that generally describe opinions of the general population of the Earth. With this he is able to create a dialogue that all people can relate to. But his intention of this book is not to support all opinions but his own.
Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume Thomas Hobbes in Chapter 13 of Leviathan, and David Hume in Section 3 of An Enquiry Concerning the Princples of Morals, give views of human nature. Hobbes’ view captures survivalism as significant in our nature but cannot account for altruism. We cover Hobbes’ theory with a theory of Varied Levels of Survivalism, explaining a larger body of behavior with the foundation Hobbes gives. Hume gives a scenario which does not directly prove fruitful, but he does capture selfless behavior.
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.
A Scottish philosopher, David Hume, came up with an argument that tested if Natural Law is able to actually allow humans to gain moral knowledge. He stated, "There are only two sorts of claims: conceptual truths or empirical truths." A conceptual truth is something that can be known just by understanding it, and an empirical truth is only known by relying on our five senses to have knowledge. Natural Law contests his argument, by acknowledging that humans must know what their human nature is, and knows whether an assortment of actions fulfills it.
Before Hume can begin to explain what morality is, he lays down a foundation of logic to build on by clarifying what he thinks the mind is. Hume states that the facts the mind sees are just the perceptions we have of things around us, such as color, sound, and heat (Hume, 215). These perceptions can be divided into the two categories of ideas and impressions (215). Both of these categories rely on reason to identify and explain what is observed and inferred. However, neither one of these sufficiently explains morality, for to Hume, morals “. . .excite passions, and produce or prevent actions” (216)....
It has long been thought that reason was what moral judgment was based off of. As time changed, emotions have become influential, causally sufficient, and necessary when it comes to forming moral judgments. The authors find that both are present when forming moral judgments (Polzler). This source is credible as it was found in an academic peer-reviewed journal, and on a college sponsored database.
Hume draws this distinction in recognizing further our own subjective and objective world. In this, through our own personal experience we associate certain facts with moral judgments and values. For example, there may be the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, we place a judgment whether we dislike or like the sun rising tomorrow. Hume has merely recognized the distinction between the fact (sun) and values (likes/dislikes) of the sun. Hume’s link between facts and values was a push to further understand moral philosophy and our understanding of it.
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.
Hume also believes that suicide (and therefore euthanasia) is morally permissible a. He believes that the gods have given us the ability to escape pain and suffering. Hume argues that people’s lives are their own, to deal with as they choose, because the gods have given us this power (Messerly). The gods have given us the power to have euthanasia so we are free to do what we want with it. In his writing, On Suicide, he talks about three types of duties: to god, to ourselves, and to others/society, but if suicide doesn’t conflict with these responsibilities then it is not wrong.
In Hume’s view, the judges allow for reasonable critiques of objects. Hume also pointed out that taste is not merely an opinion but has some physical qualities which can be proved. So taste is not a sentiment, but a determination. What was inconsistent in the triad of commonly held beliefs was that all taste is equal and so Hume replaced the faulty assumption with the true judges who can guide society’s sentiments.
Hume and Kant shared some basic principle of empiricism, but each took different directions on the theory of morality. The moral theory of Hume was based on his belief that reason alone can never cause action. Hume proclaimed virtue is always accompanied by a feeling of pleasure, and vice by a bad feeling or pain. We are compelled to commit a virtuous action because it creates pleasant feelings, and we avoid doing a vicious act because it would cause pain or bad feelings. Hume's moral theory is a virtue-centered morality rather than the natural-law morality. On the other hand, Kant uses deontological ethics to base his morality on reason alone. Kant divides the world into two classes, beings with reason and a will like humans, and things that are considered inanimate and do not possess these qualities. The first class or humans are independent beings with their own purpose; having the capacity to reason and determine their own actions. The second class of inanimate things like rock or trees that don’t possess reason or will, do not require consideration in our deliberations about what goals should be or the means to achieve them. However, human beings do deserve considerations in the goals we should ...
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. Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist themselves apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we would feel necessary. They can only guide us towards the final result of moral motivation which (by now it’s painfully clear) is sentiment.
In David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, he divides the virtues of human beings into two types: natural and artificial. He argues that laws are artificial and a human invention. Therefore, he makes the point that justice is an artificial virtue instead of a natural virtue. He believed that human beings are moral by nature – they were born with some sense of morality and that in order to understand our “moral conceptions,” studying human psychology is the key (Moehler). In this paper, I will argue for Hume’s distinction between the natural and artificial virtues.
ABSTRACT: While some philosophers tend to exclude any significance of emotion for the moral life, others place them in the center of both the moral life and the theory of value judgment. This paper presents a confrontation of two classic positions of the second type, namely the position of Hume and Scheler. The ultimate goal of this confrontation is metatheoretical — particularly as it concerns the analysis of the relations between the idea of emotion and the idea of value in this kind of theory of value judgment. In conclusion, I point to some important theoretical assumptions which underlie the positions of both thinkers despite all the other differences between them.
Like John Locke, Hume believed that at birth people were a blank slate in terms of mental perception but his perspective was that humans do have one advantage: reason. Hume believed that everyone has the ability to reason with the natural order of the world and that it is this ability that separates us from other animals. However, Hume argues “against the rationalists that, although reason is needed to discover the facts of any concrete situation and the general social impact of a trait of character or a practice over time, reason alone is insufficient to yield a judgment that something is virtuous or vicious” (Hume’s Moral Philosophy). It is this distinction that separates him from some of his compatriots in terms of what he considers to be the drive of the whole of