David Hume, who is considered to be one of the most important figures of Western philosophy is known for his significant contributions to moral philosophy and while there is no doubt that a great part of Hume’s moral writing focused on utilitarianism, it is evidently clear that Hume’s understanding of morality is rooted in terms of the moral sense theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses.
That being said, much disagreement exists today amongst various critics concerning whether Hume was purely a utilitarian or a moral sense theorist. This is due in part to Hume seeming to support many varied philosophical doctrines throughout his works. For instance, there is much
…show more content…
However, when it comes to the ultimate deciding factor of morality for Hume, it is derived from a sentiment or feeling, as he later argues, “There is the final judgment, which renders morality an active principle, and makes virtue our happiness, and vice our misery. This final moral conclusion depends on some internal sense or feeling that nature has made universal in the whole species; for only a feeling could have an influence such as I have described” (Hume 3). In light of this quote, it can be seen that, while Hume does not completely dismiss reason, as he states that reason works in part with sentiment in order to guide someone’s morals, his position on morality resonates best with that of the moral sense theory as he bases morals on sentiments rather than reason. Moreover, according to Hume, “morality can be found within. When you observe an immoral act, you do not find any right or wrong about the situation when you consider only the objects involved in the act. Only when you turn to your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation will you find a right or wrong about the situation” (Hume 72). This statement alone shows us that Hume …show more content…
Additionally, while it is self-evident that Hume did have elements of utilitarianism in his moral writing, it is apparent that Hume rejected utilitarianism in the sense that he grounds morality not in utility, but rather in moral sentiments which all humans seem to share, thus not regarding him as a utilitarian in any substantial sense. To conclude, the correct classification of Hume as a certain specific moral philosopher, such as a utilitarian or a moral sense theorist will remain a topic of discussion with advocates and opponents on both sides. However, when examining the full scope of Hume’s understanding of morality, it is evident that Hume was irrefutably a moral sense theorist. Hume’s main moral philosophy involved the notion that judgments and recommendations of traditional morality arise not from reason, but from a moral sense or feeling, which seems to be intrinsically within us as a personal sentiment and ultimately determines whether an action is morally right or wrong. Also, based on the concepts expressed in Hume’s writing, his
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.
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.
... and wrong. While Descartes believes that all bad things that happen were actually good if we could just see the bigger picture, Hume says this does not matter. The human and animal mind is not created to think of the bigger picture, it is only able to think about what is right in front of it. So in this aspect, humans and animals are both able to perceive what is right and wrong, therefore supporting Hume’s idea that humans and animals aren’t so different.
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
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.
Hume claims that to make a moral judgment; one must keep in mind all the relevant aspects the situation, and recognize all the related ideas concerning the situation. This means that we must take into consideration reason. Nevertheless, The moral judgment itself is not possible without passions or sentiment, which ultimately takes in all the deliverances of reason and creates the sentiment of disapproval or approval.
...rce of all morality seem too lifeless and lacking the human element. Hume’s attempt to display morality as a phenomenon makes more sense to me, since morality has been and will continue to be observed and can be replicated many times. Though I believe Hume’s overall outlook on morality to be more fitting as a whole, there are certainly divisions of Kant’s work I find very sustainable. For instance, Kant’s rationalization of god through the highest good of morality seems plausible, since morality without an obtainable ideal is certainly useless. However, including god in the discussion of morality is difficult due to god not being a naturally occurring sentiment that would affect judgment. Both stances on the subject of morality are very valid as well as very different, but I believe both feelings and reason are necessary to find an accurate moral philosophy model.
... The psychological argument Hume proposes supports his claim, and also suggests the cyclic behavior human beings take. While his philosophical contributions are more extreme than Locke’s, Hume’s definition of liberty and the psychological component to his proposition provide an argument for proving all things are determined, but free will is still possible.
In John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism”, Mill generates his thoughts on what Utilitarianism is in chapter 2 of his work. Mill first starts off this chapter by saying that many people misunderstand utilitarianism by interpreting utility as in opposition to pleasure. When in reality, utility is defined
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)....
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.
...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 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 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.
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.