Hume’s argument against the “sensible knave” stems from his writings in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, in which he writes his philosophical views based upon the activator of human moral action. The argument within Hume’s writing carries importance because it addresses the question of what drives, or what should drive, a person to be and act justly. His argument also encounters and explains the positive and negative consequences of moral actions. In the conclusion of his writing he includes a counter-example to his previous description of the source of moral action, the argument against the “sensible knave.” The example of a “sensible knave” is a tool to contrast the idea of being ethically right without the influence of selfish …show more content…
He argues that humans can choose to act in an ethical way without the influence of their selfish nature. Although positive effects, or negative effects, may follow the moral act itself, it is not the central motivation of a person to benefit himself. Hume discusses the effect of consequence on decisions in his writings to say that a person should choose to act ethically. He explains negative consequences to include guilt, judgement, or punishment from the society itself. He spends much more time discussing the positive consequences of right ethical action. Integrity, conversation, and appreciation of nature are some natural pleasures Hume describes as positive …show more content…
He claims that the values of natural pleasures are of greater value than those empty luxuries that the “sensible knave” strives for. Earlier in his writing, Hume raises the question that if a person were to act unethically by increasing his empty luxuries for selfish reasons he would be stricken with guilt and destroy one’s self satisfaction. He makes the assertion that self satisfaction is one of the most important natural pleasures and is the cumulation of positive actions, integrity, and appreciation or respect for a person’s neighbors. An example to apply idea of a “sensible knave,” is a person who steals money to spend on empty pleasures and items. In this situation, Hume would argue that the knave would not benefit from the natural pleasures of life. The “sensible knave” may not be able to enjoy these higher pleasures due to the agenda to serve himself in which he is not concerned with anything that does not provide a benefit for him. Hume argues that a person should act justly, without selfish motivation because it improves the quality of life by providing a deeper self-satisfaction than that found in empty
Mill grew up under the influences from his father and Bentham. In his twenties, an indication of the cerebral approach of the early Utilitarians led to Mill’s nervous breakdown. He was influential in the growth of the moral theory of Utilitarianism whose goal was to maximize the personal freedom and happiness of every individual. Mill's principle of utility is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Utilitarianism is the concept that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote happiness for the greatest number of individual. He believes that Utilitarianism must show how the conversion can be made from an interest in one’s own particular bliss to that of others. John Stuart Mill also states that moral action should not be judged on the individual case but more along the lines of “rule of thumb” and says that individuals ought to measure the outcomes and settle on their choices in view of the consequence and result that advantages the most people. Mill believes that pleasure is the only wanted consequence. Mill supposes that people are gifted with the capacity for conscious thought, and they are not happy with physical delights, but rather endeavor to accomplish the joy of the psyche too. He asserts that individuals want pleasure and reject
Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.
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.
Utilitarianism, a book written by John Stuart Mill during mid 19th century in England, encompasses Mill’s major viewpoints about the constructs of pleasure and pain for human beings; as well as utility in itself as a way of promoting political and social goals. As Mill quotes, “A cultivated mind, that is any mind to which the fountains of knowledge have been opened and which have been taught to exercises its faculties-find sources of inexhaustible interest in all that surrounds it; in nature, art, poetry, history, and the ways of man of past and their prospects for the future” (Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 372). This passage directly connects to Mill’s interpretation of Utilitarianism which is ultimately achieving happiness, or least one of his
A major problem in society John Stuart Mill highlights is that there is not a set standard for judging what makes something right or wrong. Clearing these principles is one of the fundamental steps for consensus on moral thinking. Mill believes that what makes something right or wrong is based on whether it is thought of as “good”. However, this only further raises the question on what is considered good. Mill purposes the goodness as a principle of utility, otherwise known as greatest happiness principle. Whatever brings about the most happiness is what is the most good. While others argue that natural instincts disprove the principle of utility as well as any other standard on morals, Mill believes the consistency of moral beliefs throughout history shows that there is in fact some kind of foundation.
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
Stocker begins his paper by arguing that modern ethical theories fail because, by and large, they deal only with the reasons and justifications for people’s actions and ignore people’s motivations. This failure to address the role of motivation has led to a form of schizophrenia in an important area of value;22 people are unable to reconcile their motives with the moral justifications for their actions. Stocker highlights the constraints that motives impose on both ethical theory and the ethical life in order to show that only when justifications and motives are in harmony can people lead the good life.
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.
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.
... Hume proposes attributes a sense of moral responsibility lost in Hume’s interpretation for the doctrine of liberty and necessities, for humans are responsible only for their choices.
The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.
Hume, David. “A Treatise of Human Nature. Excerpts from Book III. Part I. Sect. I-II.”
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.
J.S. Mill’s principle of utility is explained as actions are right as they tend to gain happiness, and wrong as they tend to reduce happiness. Mill defines happiness as, “pleasure and the absence of happiness is pain.” He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that more complex pleasures are ranked higher. Mills also places people’s achievements of goals, such as a virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. When Mill states that the principle of utility is the “First Principle” of morality he is ranking the principle of utility highest because that in order to know what the boundaries of morality are, it is necessary to know how actions should be accounted. The first principle dictates the rest of the principles of morality because it illuminates what the right thing to do is, and that is to maximize happiness. Happiness is the goal of morality, and this is why Mill believes that morality must have a first principle.
The consequences of these principles are important to note. That is why Hume is important, for he shows us where Empiricism ultimately leads.