Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. Hume gives five considerations to the roles of reason and sentiment within the confines of moral motivation. These considerations are his premises for the final supposition which links sentiment and morality immaculately together, and rejects reason as a plausible explanation form oral motivation. His first consideration allows for reason to be presumed true, as the causation of moral motivation. It follows however that reason “judges either matter of fact or of relations. (Hume 84) When considering the moral crime of ingratitude as Hume does, it seems foolhardy to relate ingratitude with a matter of fact, and when I speak of matter of fact I imply the likes of the geometry, chemistry, algebra etc. A matter of fact that can be proven true or false and will always be true and false and can be learned by a leaner and taught by a teacher (though ingratitude might be taught and learned I suppose. Ingratitude is certainly not a matter of fact then, and so it must be discounted because it “arises from complication of circumstances w... ... middle of paper ... ...f his inner being. His sentiments, if only for himself, remain within him. “One thing can always be a reason, why another is desired. 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 be still sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality because they can only be true or false. It can not be because of truth or falsity that I find a particular song to be joyful. I find that song to be joyful because of the sentiments it stirs inside my mind. Reasons can not be a foundation because they do not explain human emotions or sentiments, only statements. And truth statements, no matter what their intentions or interpretations, can not exist in morality because of the aforementioned considerations. Hume, David. "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals." 1983 Hackett Publishing Co.
The story “Sonny’s Blues “is about two brothers that deal with racism. In dealing with their issues they both suffer and survive in their family and community. Their stories are a strong impact on their character and how they deal with their pain. Sonny chooses a more damaging means of racism, such as drug addiction to heroin; although, he does find a better choice music! The older brother, the narrator, James Baldwin, goes to college to become a teacher, and give back to his community in Harlem. The narrator rises above the suffering and difficulties of trying to fit into the white society. Sonny and the narrator find different means in dealing with their racism.Eventhough, both brothers take different routes in their lives, and they feel at the end be true to yourself, Follow your Dreams!
To start off the first difference that I noticed between the stories was the age that the characters matured and the person who taught them. Sylvia is taught a lesson while she is still very young, when reading the text you can assume that Sylvia is between 10 and 13 years old. Sylvia was taught a lesson as child by an adult. The lesson Miss Moore was trying to teach her was that getting an education is key for them to change their lives and have a better future for themselves. On the other hand, in “Sonny’s Blues” the narrator is an adult, and we can assume he is around the age 30 because he has two kid, a wife, and is a school teacher. Unlike In “The Lesson”, the narrator is taught a lesson as an adult, by someone who is younger than him. The lesson that the narrator is taught is that, all the struggles his brother has gone through he expresses them through his
Hume focused on passions that drive people, not a subservience to regulations. Hume would agree that Kant’s ethics are a form of moral absolutism, which is that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of context. Under Kant’s ethics it follows that there is rule worship, in which people follow rules with no regard to potential consequences. Despite the fact that Hume and Kant agree that the golden rule is a respectable principal, they reach the conclusion from different premises. Kant considers it moral because of the idea that no person is above any other person, which is consistently generalizable. Hume considers it moral because it is emotionally sound to treat others well, as love begets love. Another issue that arises with Kant ethics is when a person confronts a conflict of duty, that is – when two duties present themselves simultaneously, and each is deserving of my attention. Under Hume’s morality of passion, one can simply go with which feels better, but under Kant’s Duty Ethics one would be possibly paralyzed into inaction. Lastly, because Kant believed emotions were too inconsistent to fit into his reliant-on-consistency morality, there is an issue of moral coldness – that is, a focus on reason alone with emotions disregarded. Hume states the exact opposite, that it is the emotions within us that, despite inconsistency, should
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.
Man takes note of the consequences his actions have, and form his habits accordingly. Impressions are more lively and forcible due to experiencing an action, while ides/thoughts are less forcible and less lively because they are only reflections and only thinking of an action. Hume explains this in, “Impression, then, I mean all our more lively perceptions…Love, or hate, see, or feel...and impressions are distinguished from ideas, which are the less lively perceptions.” Hume also explains in the next quote explains that impressions or sense are superior to ideas alone, “…all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones…first, when we analyze our thoughts or ideas… they resolve themselves into such simple ideas as were copied from a precedent feeling or sentiment.”
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.
Thus it is clear to Kant that the long-held idea that reason existed to nurture man's happiness is fundamentally untrue. However Kant maintained that there must be a purpose for which reason was placed in man. He arrives at the conclusion that although reason influences the will, it is not meant to do so in order to supply any goods outside of its initial influence, "[reason'...
In Managing Social Service Staff for Excellence, Nancy Summers (2010) provides a list of “The Differences between a Professional Relationship and a Friendship” (p. 192). The very first item on the list states that a professional relationship puts the client first; whereas in a friendship, “each friend gives the support to the other” (p. 192). Hepworth, et al. (2013) also supports this by stating that professional boundaries intend to make “the client’s interest the primary focus” (p. 71). From my perspective, this is the main difference between a professional and personal relationship. As my field instructor has pointed out, in a professional relationship, it’s about the client’s needs. As social workers, we should not try to get anything
...er pleasure later. However, this opinion does not account for actions excluding one’s appetite taken at the end (or even causing the end) of one’s life, like in giving one’s life for that of a loved one. In that case, the person would be intentionally forgoing passion forever in search of something else. Hume’s argument does not make provision for this. In fact, the only objection one could make to this last example is to say that a man who gives his life for his friend has a miseducated or depraved soul, yet no one seems to make this argument.
In Part II of David Hume’s Dialogues of Natural Religion, Demea remarks that the debate is not about whether or not God exists, but what the essence of God is. (pg.51) Despite this conclusion in Part II, in his introduction to the Dialogues Martin Bell remarks that the question of why something operates the way it does is quite different from the question why do people believe that it operates the way it does. (pg. 11) This question, the question of where a belief originates and is it a valid argument, is much of the debate between Hume’s three characters in the Dialogues. (pg. ***)
The concept of logical positivism, also known as logical empiricism or simply positivism, is a vital one in the realm of the social sciences, having a profusion of influence. Virtually beginning in the 1920s, logical positivism reached a peak around the time of the 1950s and 1960s. The notion revolves around the idea that scientific knowledge is the only form of valid and factual knowledge and focuses on the importance of one’s own phenomena experiences (Stiles, 2017). Although influential, there have been many analyses and critiques of the notion, with political scientist Thomas S. Kuhn acting as a prevalent critic. Kuhn, and a fair sum of other critics, are post-positivists which are those who believe that believe theory is revisable as not
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.
2 Timothy 3 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” This verse reminds readers that the Bible is its own best teacher and is beneficial to all that read it. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, addresses the issue of understanding the Bible. Originally published in 1981 and is now in its fourth edition, the book emphasizes the truth that the Bible is meant to be read by everyone. The books purpose is to assist the reader in becoming a better interpreter of the Bible. The book states “that the aim of good interpretation is not uniqueness,” but rather the aim is simply to get at the plain meaning
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.
In non-positivist approaches, the closer participation of researcher allows him to gain insight of participant’s worldview. It let the researcher find out problems that are often ignored by the positivist approach. Qualitative and in-depth explanations can play a crucial role in signifying potential connections, causes and effects. This type of research adds flesh and blood to social research. However, non-positivist sociologists also, at times, use scientific methods of data collection (Kelle,