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
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
Kant assumes all non-human animals are heteronomous (the opposite of autonomous) meaning their wills are governed by an outside source other than themselves, such as nature, through their instincts and impulses. Hume’s take on nonhuman animals’ wills is slightly different than that of Kant’s, in that though they do not have moral sentiments like humans, they do have sympathy, one of the essential foundations of morality. David Hume’s approach to moral ethics differs from Kant’s in many ways, since Hume’s approach is more in the category of empirical or experimental. This major difference comes heavily from the fact that Hume’s ethics are only a part of his much larger endeavor of explaining all aspects of human nature.... ...
... 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
...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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.