Hume’s best argument against the tacit consent theory is the one focusing on the person who took over the land of the “lawful prince” (194). The new ruler has ruled for about 10 years and has not had any outbreaks of discontent or rebellion however this is not due to a perfectly content people that he is ruling over. The people that are being ruled over by the new sovereign are inwardly opposed to the idea of how he overthrew the previous prince but they are too afraid to do anything thus expressing tacit consent. The mere fact that the people are too afraid to do anything about the new ruler or express their displeasure in any way because they are frightened of the power that he possesses and the armies that he can send does not justify how …show more content…
The people were already dependent on the first prince because he was ruling over them and then to be overthrown would still leave the people dependent on whoever took over. The people could be extremely displeased with the new ruler and his actions but could not take action because of how frightened they are of the troops that the ruler has to destroy any sign of rebellion or discontentment. The lack of action by the people being ruled over should not be taken as consent because they may feel like there is nothing that they can do to better improve their situation but just because they feel hopeless does not mean that they are comfortable with their circumstances. This argument put forward by Hume is very effective in discrediting the tacit consent theory by stating that the unfortunate people now being ruled over were simply unlucky by being citizens of a place that was going to be overtaken. These citizens may actually be unhappy with the new ruler but are too afraid to do anything to better their situation because of the way that rebellions are
...narch be removed if he was a representative of God? With the separation of God and the state, the idea that the monarch also had to obey all of the laws of the land were also introduced. Such was a great change from the ways of the past and embodied the spirit of the Enlightenment.
For one hundred years the colonists had been on their own and had a small taste for self government. They created a few laws for themselves, participated in rights they legally had and a trade system for themselves. When Parliament jumped back into the control of the colonies, they did not allow the colonists to have a say in any of the occurrences in the new land. This was a change for them due to the time they had previously spent alone. The colonists make this clear when John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson say, “ we are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated British officials, or resistance by force.━ The latter is our choice” (Document 5). They are saying how Parliament has forced them to rebel because they would not allow them to be represented. If there was no representation then the colonists had a right to break
Compliance is “a form of social influence involving direct requests from one person to another”, whilst Obedience is “a form of social influence in which one person simply orders one or more others to perform some actions” (Baron, R.A. & Branscombe, N.R., 2014, p. 255). These two terms are methods of social influence, particularly prominent in Milgram’s study on obedience. Milgram’s study is a psychological experiment focusing on whether or not people would obey authority figures, even when the instructions given were morally wrong. Back then; the terms of the experiment were completely acceptable, but due to the strict controls of contemporary psychology today, this test would be impossible to repeat. The trial breaches many ethical factors
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
Patrick Hannigan Moral Philosophy January 2014 Kant’s Reason Vs. Hume’s Desire 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.
It also mentions that the government can’t make decisions without the approval of the people. This shows that before, the government head, or the king, has abused his power to force the people to comply with what he says, ignoring the needs of the people. This can spark a revolution because when people feel that the government is hurting them more than helping them, or more into helping themselves than the people, they turn against the government and strive to make a new one that will work in the interest of the people. This can be seen in document 3 where Locke, an Enlightenment thinker, and Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, say that if the government tries to take away the rights of the people or if it becomes destructive, then the people have the right to abolish it and establish a new government. This also proves that the government has taken away the rights of the people before, or else they would not have mentioned this right in documents like the Declaration of
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.
Through my research and findings of obedience to authority this ancient dilemma is somewhat confusing but needs understanding. Problem with obedience to authority has raised a question to why people obey or disobey and if there are any right time to obey or not to obey. Through observation of many standpoints on obedience and disobedience to authority, and determined through detailed examination conducted by Milgram “The Perils Of Obedience,” Doris Lessing “Group Minds” and Shirley Jackson “The Lottery”. We have to examine this information in hopes of understanding or at least be able to draw our own theories that can be supported and proven on this subject.
Not all authority is corrupt, so therefore obedience is not always a bad thing. Following moral and just authorities will allow society to continue functioning for many generations to come. Standing up for what we believe in is one of the main reasons civilization has been able to advance throughout the years. There is a good chance that continuing to obey corrupt people and losing our backbones could eventually lead to the destruction of humanity.
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
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.
The idea of consent is a key element in the works of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the "Second Treatise of Government," Locke puts forth his conception of the ideal form of government based on a social contract. As Locke develops his theory of consent, he also incorporates theories of political obligation on the part of all citizens of his state as well as his theory of revolution and the conditions under which rebellion is permissible. Though Locke may appear to have explored the notion of consent completely, there are some problems with his theory that weaken its impact. Despite the possible problems encountered with Locke's idea of consent in a political society, Rousseau, in his essay "On the Social Contract," seems to agree with Locke with regards to the concept of consent as it applies to the use of money. The works of Locke and Rousseau explore political foundations that depend on a social contract which requires consent above all things in order to secure liberty for the people.
David Hume’s essay “Of the Standard of Taste” addresses the problem of how objects are judged. Hume addresses three assumptions about how aesthetic value is determined. These assumptions are: all tastes are equal, some art is better than others, and aesthetic value of art is defined by a person’s taste(from lecture). However, Hume finds the three beliefs to be an “inconsistent triad”(from lecture) of assumptions. If all taste is equal but taste defines the aesthetic value, how can it be that some art is good and others bad? Wouldn’t all art be equal if all taste is equal? Hume does not believe all objects are equal in their beauty or greatness. He states that some art is meant to endure, “the beauties, which are naturally fitted to excite agreeable sentiment, immediately display their energy”.(text pg 259) So how will society discern what is agreeable and what is not? Hume proposes a set of true judges whose palates are so refined they can precisely define the aesthetic value of something.
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.