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.
Hume believes that natural virtues are instinctive and are more intrinsically motivated than natural virtues. He believes that natural virtues are like moral instincts (Moehler). Hobbes is a radical egoist, believing that people are predominantly self-interested. However, Hume argues against this by stating that hums also have certain moral feelings; that if you want to explain human behavior, self-interest is not enough.
In a general sense, according to Hume, natural virtues originate in nature and are more universal. He describes them as virtues that humans have in nature without a social structure, such as a government. Hume takes ideas from Thomas Hobbes’ State of Nature to develop his ideas, by presenting the idea of human existence as sole individual beings, without social constraints.
Natural virtues are immediate, instinctive, and emotional responses to situations. Human beings do not have to learn these. They are certain moral instincts we “naturally” have. Hume states that there are two categories within natural virtues: social and non-social. Non-social natural virtues are useful to the person themselves, such as prudence and temperance. Social natural v...
... middle of paper ...
...fair to be skeptical about the second half of this claim, the first half of it does in fact seems reasonable. Therefore, justice does only seem to be the virtue of resolving conflicts amongst other things, which does makes it artificial in a sense.
Hume believes that we cannot rely on everyone doing what is his or her own best self-interest. Therefore, artificial values are put into place to keep the system from collapsing. This in turn puts a cooperative scheme in society. This leads to the Hume’s assumption that fairness is an artificial virtue. He is sometimes also presented as a contractarian; in a more specific sense, a proto-utilitarian. According to which, he judges an action based on whether the action makes you happy or sad.
Works Cited
Moehler, M. Natural and Artificial Virtues (PowerPoint slides). Retrieved from http://www.moehler.org/ITE/Notes/16.pdf
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
Hobbes’ state of nature depicts the life of man as “nasty, brutish, and short” (31) and does not allow for innate morality, which for some may be seen as problematic for Hobbes’ theory. Locke’s state of nature seems to be more accessible as it presents a more dynamic picture of human nature. Moreover, it allows for an innate sense of morality within human beings that does not simply arise out of the formation of a
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
Aristotle’s psychological types, as described in “Nichomachean Ethics,” are a categorization of different internal moral characters. These categories are a comprehensive attempt - for ancient philosophy - at identifying which internal psychologies manifest virtuous or morally bad behaviour. His moral categories are somewhat obsolete in a post-modern world, where science and politics are far more developed than in Ancient Greece. However, moral psychological ethics and normative debate still holds a relevant position in the moral undercurrent of society – it is dispersed through legal, political, military and medical activity, in relationships and familial function. It is for this reason, that Immanuel Kant examined a similar issue in “Pure Practical Reason and the Moral Law,” and that it still makes for interesting philosophical discussion.
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.
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
As opposed to Naturalism, the ethical theory of duty occupies a completely different domain. Immanuel Kant, the major advocate of this ethical appro...
Human nature is characteristics that generally apply to all people. It is our natural habits such as being impatient, wanting to be accepted, and so on. It is within human nature that peopl...
Aristotle claims that there are two types of virtue: intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtues must be taught, so it requires experience and time. On the other hand, “none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature.” (Aristotle 23) He says that when we are born, we all have the potential to be morally virtuous; it just depends on our upbringing and habits that determine who actually becomes virtuous. He confirms this with a metaphor to government, when he says, “legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them.” (23) This is showing that on all levels, virtue is something that needs to be taught.
In the first chapter, General Remarks, Mill points out that, even after 2000 years, this fundamental question remains controversial. In his opinion, neither the idea of a natural moral faculty nor the idea of intuitionism can help to solve the problem. Most of the people who have tried to solve it, however, have been influenced ‘tacitly’ by the greatest-happiness principle, the author argues.
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.
In this essay Hume creates the true judges who are required to have: delicacy of taste, practice in a specific art of taste, be free from prejudice in their determinations, and good sense to guide their judgments. 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 quality which can be proved. So taste is not a sentiment but a determination. What was inconsistent in the triad of commonly held belief was that all taste is equal and so Hume replaced the faulty assumption with the true judges who can guide society’s sentiments.
Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection” (87). In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can still be sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality, because they can only be true or false.
When looking at human nature through the eyes of John Locke, right away one notes that his belief differs greatly from that of Hobbes as he shares a much more optimistic viewpoint. Locke believes that man is born with a clean slate, rather than the pre-conceived sentiment of evil and offers valuable insight into man that is not purely based on conflict. In contrast to Hobbes, Locke believes in a different state of man; that man should not harm one another, or do anything to stop one from achieving their goals in life. Through this, he views human nature as not to be self-serving or to be engaged in a battle against one another for each other’s possessions or resources, as resources are limited. It is better to share
For the purposes of this essay human virtue is defined as a trait or ability such that one who has that trait or ability would be considered excellent and thus virtuous by human standards. Additionally it is important to keep