Hume Rationalism

I infer several conclusions from Smith’s definition and analysis of sympathy. First, sympathy is a mode of perception. The “eye of the mind” or the imagination perceives the situation witch elicits primary sentiments and secondary agreeable or disagreeable sentiments which are the basis of moral judgement. Secondly, I conclude from Smith’s propositions that the mind is a passive recipient, therefore moral knowledge is a by-product of external stimuli. In other words our external sense stimuli provoke a change in our minds, from which our imaginations produce sentiments by which we judge the propriety or merit of another’s conduct.

Although different emotions sprout different response, Smith argues that people’s cannot go beyond their own selves and therefore use personal conceptions to judge others’ sentiments of joy or grief. Smith states that although we can sympathy with others’ emotion, we cannot truly go beyond our own personal experience and preconception because “it is by the imagination only that we can for any conception of what he suffers” (1). Therefore, although one may sympathy with others’ feelings, people are always limited to their “own person.” Smith explores “there are some passions of which the expressions excite no sort of sympathy” (2) because it may depend on people personal perception or preconceptions. For instance, Smith argues that “the furious

Morality is a complicated matter, one which requires rationality, but is often driven by emotions. A person’s behavior is almost completely driven by emotions and often times emotions are what tell us when something might be wrong or right. Motivation also comes from emotions, so without feelings of anger, depression, frustration and the like we would hardly ever do anything in order to change things in our lives (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 258). Virtue ethics then is concerned with what makes a person virtuous versus vicious when it comes to making moral decisions, with emotions playing an important role. In this paper, I support Aristotle’s emphasis on emotions as a key to being virtuous, especially since emotions tell us what is important and motivate us to act (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 257-258).

Hume believes that the obligations of morality may be changed by reason, but these obligations still exist and cannot become extinct so long as the obligations are present. These obligations cannot be created, but instead must be found and there for exist with certainty. The reasoning behind people’s opinions of the obligations cannot be established with certainty however.

I do agree that Hume's epistemology is a “wrecking ball” on the grounds that Hume's thoughts develop a radical skepticism, it decreases metaphysics to pretentious nonsense, breaking beliefs of god, mind, and the irrelevant self to smithereens. Furthermore, Hume questions the philosophical validity of the most respected of all scientific concepts, specifically that of causality itself, claiming that our utilization of it cannot be logically justified either in scientific or in commonsense pondering. Many other philosophers, including Hume's, upset conventional pondering and oblige us to reexamine our formerly accepted conceptions about ourselves and the nature of reality. Eventually, Hume concludes that we have no definite knowledge about the

What argument does Hume give to support the claim that morality is based on sentiment? How does Hume envision the relationship between reason and passions or sentiments? Do you agree?

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

Hume and Kant offered two differing views on morality. Hume's philosophy regarding moral theory came from the belief that reason alone can never cause action. Desire or thoughts cause action. Because reason alone can never cause action, morality is rooted in us and our perception of the world and what we want to gain from it. Virtue arises from acting on a desire to help others. Hume's moral theory is therefore a virtue-centered morality rather than the natural-law morality, which saw morality as coming from God. Kant's notion of morality stems from his notion of one universal moral law. This law is pertinent to all people and can be used at all times before carrying our actions According to Kant, you ought to act according to the maxim

After David Hume, the philosopher who has theorized about sympathy is Adam Smith. Smith’s positing of the principle of sympathy emphasizes on a truer understanding of the workings of human nature vis-à-vis the self and the other. He makes sympathy the basis for one’s concern for other in which one’s misery, pain and happiness give the same feeling to others. So, he relates sympathy with compassion, benevolence, or some other sorts of ethical impulse.

Kant’s ethics theory, Mill’s moral theory and Aristotelian moral theory though slightly different in a few aspects, they are all connected in the sense that they all aim for the aspect of good and happiness in a given circumstance as brought by

In “A Treatise of Human Nature,” Hume argues whether or not passions can unreasonable. To preface his argument, Hume said: “The greatest part of moral philosophy, ancient and modern, is preeminence of reason above passion” (pg.1) Following this view that reason trumps passion, Hume says that all rational creatures must manage their actions by using reason.

Humans are born ethical, however, without guidance on how to use and develop one’s conscience, the extent to how these morals are used is slim. People are aware of the difference between “right and wrong,” although, their conscience is not powerful enough to provoke appropriate and righteous doings. Without nurturing the conscience, moral principles, reasoning and judgement are abandoned and one is tempted to do wrong. Eventually, they have oppressed their conscience beneath sin and wrongdoings, developing into moral and ethical issues. In the short story “Tell-Tale Heart” by Edgar Allan Poe, the reader can see that the narrator was strong-minded and raised with moral principles due to the remorse he expresses after murdering the old man. Nevertheless, not all humans express guilt after sinning. Guilt is formed when humans have not lived up to their values and morals, yet, if a person has not been raised with these factors properly, it affects the penitence they feel. When a person has not allowed their conscience to develop, they are left with weak morals, resulting in them indulging in sin without guilt or

Wand(1979) expounds on Hume ethical theory in relation to moral obligation is a theory of good and evil rather than one of duty and obligation- , according to Wand (1956:55):”this statement is quite erroneous’ for Hume does not merely wish to discover the foundation of our moral actions”. Hume account of how motives prompt men to moral actions is quite complex, but Wand (1979) also asserts that Hume distinguishes between two basic type of action to make it more understandable. The first type are those action which men will perform without the aid or influence of reason or custom; the second are those action which it can be expected men will normally perform with the aid or influence of reason or custom.

Thence, as sentimentality is believed to give rise to falsified beliefs of the world and of oneself, many critics of sentimentalists and sentimentality, such as Anthony Savile and Oscar Wilde, agree that sentimentality is a defective condition that deserves censure(Newman, 342). However, these analysts fail to realize the flaw in their argument is that they do not distinguish between the two differing senses of the meaning of sentimentality. Hence, this thesis argues that Newman rightfully opposes the many beliefs of sentimentality by arguing the two senses of sentimentality, distinguishing between ideality and reality, and describing that falsifications exist among even praiseworthy instances, not only the sentimental instances.

ABSTRACT: While some philosophers tend to exclude any significance of emotion for the moral life, others place them in the center of both the moral life and the theory of value judgment. This paper presents a confrontation of two classic positions of the second type, namely the position of Hume and Scheler. The ultimate goal of this confrontation is metatheoretical — particularly as it concerns the analysis of the relations between the idea of emotion and the idea of value in this kind of theory of value judgment. In conclusion, I point to some important theoretical assumptions which underlie the positions of both thinkers despite all the other differences between them.