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
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.
In order for the insistence that equity and impartiality to hold true to Mill's Utility, we must find a foundation from within his argumentation that will support it. Thus we turn to Mill's sanctions, or incentives that he proposes to drive one towards the path of Utility. Mill's first sanction, the internal sanction, leads one to act ethically because of the fear of displeasure that might arise from other people if one does not act in this manner. Mill justifies that individuals desire the warmness of others as an incentive to acting unselfishly in the attempt to acquire the greatest good, and fear the dissatisfaction of others. Mill's second sanction, the internal sanction, is in essence an individual's inner conscience. With the assumption that the conscience is pure and free from corruption, Mill implies that satisfaction is brought forth to the conscience when one successfully and ethically commits to one's duties, the duty of Utility. What is undesired is the feeling of dissatisfaction that spawns when one does not act dutifully. In order for this rationale to make sense, one must do what is almost unavoid...
...vivalist instinct that involves self-preservation. Hobbes, however, is unable to explain altruism, thus we developed the Varied Levels of Survivalism as a layer above his theory. This modification allows for varying motives based on circumstances, all based on survival. Hume takes note of this altruistic tendency but he gives a scenario that is either inapplicable or he does not filter survivalism from humanity. Utilizing Hobbes’ survivalism, Hume’s generosity when capable, and the Varied Levels of Survivalism, we arrive at a viable theory of human nature and explanation of human behavior.
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.
... 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.
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
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.
John Stuart Mill believes in the utilitarian principle that no action in of itself is good or bad, but the consequences of the action. People who believe in the utilitarian principle agrees that the way to judge an action’s morality is by seeing if it promotes the greatness amount of happiness, or pleasure, to the greatest amount of people. Based on that belief, Mill thinks that the only possible standard to judge ethics is happiness. Every action that we take, whether it be for short-term pleasure (lower-order pleasures) or if it’s for long term pleasure (higher-order pleasures), the tail end result for doing anything in this lifetime is to be truly happy. He also believes that happiness is the only thing that can be universally, in terms
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.
Being a Hedonist, Mill tries to respond to what is referred to as The Philosophy of Swine Objection: ‘since hedonistic utilitarianism suggests that nothing is good except pleasure, it is a philosophy worthy of pigs. Human happiness is different from animal happiness, in fact humans have higher faculti...
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.
... 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.
Empiricism (en- peiran; to try something for yourself): The doctrine that all knowledge must come through the senses; there are no innate ideas born within us that only require to be remembered (ie, Plato). All knowledge is reducible to sensation, that is, our concepts are only sense images. In short, there is no knowledge other than that obtained by sense observation.
I agree with Mill’s hedonistic view of happiness. Mill believes that pleasure is a fundamental value because it promotes happiness, and diminishes the feelings of pain and unhappiness. The objections to hedonism are invalid because it is always better to be intelligent and consciously aware of everything in one's life, as opposed to being content and selfish, mimicking the lifestyle of a pig whose pleasures have all been satisfied.