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.
Recommended: David Hume and Reason
Hume's Argument on the Distinction Benevolence and Self-love
In his Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals, Hume rebukes the arguments of skeptical, philosophers who deny the existence of moral distinctions. He doubts that an individual can be so indifferent that he or she is unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Hume believes that the differences between men arise from nature, from habit, and from education. Hume believes no skeptic, no matter how doubtful, can claim that there are absolutely no moral distinctions. Also, he accepts if we disregard these skeptics, we find that they eventually give up their unconvincing claims and come over to the side of common sense and reason. In this paper, it will be shown that ultimately Hume maintains that benevolence is not the basis for self-love, rather it focuses on the utility to please, and the need for benevolence for its own sake.
The particular instances on which Hume first focuses are those relating to two social virtues: benevolence and justice. It is obvious, he says, that our benevolent qualities are important. To say of a person that he or she is sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, is to 'express the highest merit, which human nature is capable of attaining'(29). It is equally apparent, he suggests, that these qualities are esteemed because they proved for, "the happiness of mankind, the order of society, the harmony of families, the mutual support of friends…over the breasts of men"(34). The usefulness of these forms of benevolence is an essential condition of the attention we give to them, a inference that is understood, once morals acts of a particular type cease to be useful, they cease to be valued (30-32). In addit...
... middle of paper ...
...nevolence, however small, instilled in our hearts(67). These benevolent doctrines, however weak they may be, are sufficiently strong to lead us to prefer that which is "useful and serviceable to mankind, above what is pernicious and dangerous"(72). Hume affirms that moral distinctions are contrived for the purpose that we have the predilection to benefit human society. The presence of this sentiment means that we respond with approval or disapproval to certain actions or qualities that we experience others to have. Hume agrees that there are genuine and significant differences between characters and the actions resulting from them. Some are beneficial to mankind, and some are baneful. These are actions we react with approval or disapproval, and thus we create moral distinctions, and call actions assisting the public morally good and those leaning toward evil morals.
In David Hume’s essay, Why Does God Let People Suffer, he allows the reader to question if God exists in the world we live in with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look for and gather proof about other scientific issues. In the following essay, I will demonstrate how David Hume feels that there is a God despite all the suffering and pain that exists in our world. “Is the World, considered in general, and as it appears to us in this life, different from what a Man or such a limited being would, beforehand, expect from a very powerful, wise, and benevolent Deity?” Additionally, Hume argues for the existence of an omnipotent God. According to the author, a world with this much evil in it, one can’t logically assume that there exists an all powerful God that knows everything. Interestingly, Hume simply argues that we can’t infer that there is a God that exists who is all knowing and all powerful with the tremendous amounts of evil that exists in the world. More importantly, Hume speculates on the creation of the universe. One hypothesis contends that the universe was created without good or malice. In other words, according to Hume, our universe was more likely created by something other than a God with good intentions. However, throughout the essay Hume presents arguments for the existence of God and against the existence of God. Hume further argues that humans would be able to comprehend an omniscient G...
Aristotle’s virtuous person and Kant’s moral worth have two different meanings. Kant and Aristotle, from different times, have different ways of looking at what makes people make the best decisions. Coming from different sides of ethics in Deontology and virtue ethics, they agree and disagree with each other as most other schools of ethical thought do as well. After stating both their positions, I will prove that Kant’s view of morality is more correct than Aristotle’s view of the person.
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.
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
... 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.
Thomas Hobbes in Chapter 13 of Leviathan, and David Hume in Section 3 of An Enquiry Concerning the Princples of Morals, give views of human nature. Hobbes’ view captures survivalism as significant in our nature but cannot account for altruism. We cover Hobbes’ theory with a theory of Varied Levels of Survivalism, explaining a larger body of behavior with the foundation Hobbes gives. Hume gives a scenario which does not directly prove fruitful, but he does capture selfless behavior.
Hume, David. “Of Moral and Social order.” An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. G. Lee Bowie, Meredith W. Michaels and Robert C. Solomon. 4th ed. Harcourt College Publishers, 2000. 348-352
The idea of morals and values are one of the most debated topics in the world of critical thinking. Life times can be spent philosophizing about the morality of our human race and the shared “innate” values. Hence forth this excerpt which talks directly (as well as indirectly) about the genealogy of values and morals in a society of humans comparatively to that of nature.
Aristotle believes that right and wrong decisions exist, while according to Hume, judging someone is basically impossible because humans make decisions based on their passions, and one cannot judge someone else based off their passions. All human actions aim at some good according to Aristotle, but finding the mean in all actions is nearly impossible. When one finds the mean in all things and is aware of their quality, then Aristotle believes one has achieved happiness or supreme good. Instead of a supreme good, Hume believes that passions a fall subordinate to one 's will. For example, if one has a passion to murder someone then they will decide to kill people. Hume’s views on decision making connect directly to his theory about judgement, because all human perceptions differ when it comes to all things, including murder. Both Aristotle and Hume believe that one can attain the quality of being a virtuous person, but what virtue means is different according to the two philosophers. Aristotle believes one is virtuous when they have found the mean in all things and have achieved the qualities of nobility and kindness. Hume also believes that kindness matters when deeming one virtuous or vile, but Hume does not believe one must find the mean in anything. Hume simply believes that one must be a benevolent person and have benevolent desires to be considered virtuous. Aristotle and Hume share clashing views about the same parts of morality, the two drastically differ in regards explaining judgement, reasoning, and how to be
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.
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 still be sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality, because they can only be true or false.
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 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.
John Stuart Mill, Patrick Devlin, H.L.A Hart, and Ronald Dworkin each provide varying views on what constitutes morality and what the role of society/the law should be in protecting morality. The discussion of these four philosophers provides insight into this debate, as each philosopher provides a different perspective. For example, Mill being a utilitarian gives him a unique view. I will discuss Mill, Devlin, Hart, and Dworkin and compare their views in order to gain a better understanding of what constitutes morality and how far should society and the law be permitted to interact with morality.