David Hume's Distinction Between Natural and Artificial Virtues

We acts that can be counted as agreeable and pleasing includes honesty, justice, benevolence, and courage, not only cleanliness, which ‘naturally renders us agreeable to others, and is a very considerable source of love and affection’, but also such things as wit and eloquence. In Hume’s argument on moral assessments as triggers of action as stated in Book III, part I, section I of the Treatise of Human Nature, he states

An understanding of a standard of moral conduct resides in all human beings, and it influences our behavior and our expectations of how others should behave. C.S. Lewis refers to this standard as the Law of Human Nature.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

To show Socrates his rationale, Glaucon proposes an elaborate thought experiment. Consider licensing both a just man and an unjust man to do whatever they please. Both will pursue the same desires of what is best for them, that is, “what any nature naturally pursues as good.” (Republic 359d) For Glaucon, people acting “justly” is the consequence of laws that “pervert” this natural pursuit of the good in order to “honor equality” in society.

No, I do not think that Hume would agree that moral knowledge can be established with certainty. For the reason that morality is often bias, it changes depending on the person, culture, or social mores, what may be considering as wrong for some people, may not be the same to another. This would mean, morality knowledge does not view or claims right or wrong objectively. Hume believe, people often confusing facts of nature and value judgements, he explained that what may feels natural to us, but it does not always means good. For example, the act of incest which considering as deviant and criminal in human, however the same act in animals, is considered as an innocent act. The act itself did not change, the differences are, human has considered

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher known for being an empiricist and for being skeptical of religion. Like Hobbes, he was also a big influence on western philosophy. Among his many works, his major writing include, treatise of human nature and enquiry concerning the principles of morals. In an enquiry concerning the principles of morals, Hume introduces his fovarism towards the role of sentiment. He argued reason solely cannot be a motive of any action and that reason can never resist the motive of passion "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions,"(pg 415). He explains that Moral distinctions are developed from the moral sentiments such as feelings of approval and disapproval felt by an action. Hume believes that pleasure and pain are the causes of the passions that drive our actions. According to Hume, it is the pleasure and pain that are the causes of the passions which drives our actions. He claims that it is the actual experience of the pain or pleasure, not the reason we adduce to their causes that drives us to act.” Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not

Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctually moral without giving thought to the overall happiness. On the other hand, Mill does in fact use happiness as the bases for his ethics. He proposes that actions are right if they promote overall happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness (Mill, ). In this paper, it will be argued that Mill 's views on happiness are more reasonable than those of Kant 's because happiness should be the base for ethics.

Profound quality for Hume was not an all inclusive idea, but rather a human develop established on reason and human assumption. The way that people debate whether an activity is correct or wrong and utilize a sane type of exchange to achieve a conclusion is solid evidence for profound quality being established on reason. Notwithstanding, people additionally have sentiments of endorsement or objection concerning these activities, which gives confirm that supposition is likewise part of the human condition. Hume considers a few contradicting suppositions, for example, pride and modesty, or love and abhor, and treats the way these emotions work on us as solid cases of our conduct, not as summed up deliberations. Assumptions propel us and regularly

The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.

Hume is a philosopher who believes in the Copy Principle. That all ideas derive from vivid

While we associate with many different groups and focus on personal uniqueness for affirmation and identity, as a whole the similarities between individuals outweigh the differences. For example, race, class, culture, religion and politics are great divides in society. Yet, the majority if individuals would agree that we should be proponents of peace. I find Hume’s philosophy compelling because he applies the ideas of necessity and liberty to fundamentals of human nature.

John Finnis, an Australian legal philosopher has tried to resurrect the natural law tradition in moral philosophy and law since the mid-1960s. He tries to offer a "neo-Aquinian" natural law philosophy which does not presuppose a divine being. By focusing attention on goods rather than a single Good, Finnis skilfully articulates what he calls a theory of moral action for our day. Or, in other words, he seeks a theory of how to live well. Finnis identifies a number of equally valuable basic goods or ends, given human nature, there are seven. Three are substantive, existing prior to action and four are reflexive which is depending on our choices.

David Hume's ethical theory sits between philosophy and modern day psychology. He uses the empirical method to study the natural tendencies of human beings to engage their emotions, and in our emotions is where morality could be understood best. One must remember

As well as being a devoted biologist, botanist, moral philosopher, psychologist, zoologist and many more things besides Aristotle held a view about human nature that he interwove into his concept of virtue theory, this is described at some length in the text Nicomachean Ethics. It is this view on human nature that I intend to explain and discuss throughout this essay with reference to some more recent philosophers to show that Aristotle’s view was not only linked directly to Athenian society but has managed to stand the test of time. A point I will return to later in a yet to posted article ‘Can we Consider Modern Ethics to be Aristotelian or Nietzschean?’, this article is much better written and argues the points in greater detail. I must admit this was in fact a very early work of mine and although some editing has been made it still lacks the strength some of my later pieces possess.

Morality is an important component of a human being because it helps shape the ethical foundation that every human being has. Whether to be good, evil, honest, or deceitful are just some of the traits morality helps us develop. Thus, it is evident that morality is a crucial component of a human being. However, what ultimately drives moral action? This question is debated and investigated against many philosophers, a few of them being Thomas Hobbes, Frans de Waal, and David Hume.