User talk:Atcovi/Ethics/Lecture4

Week #2 - Part 2 Discussion: David Hume and Reason is Inert
Find a place where Hume states that reason cannot be a motivator for moral actions. What does he mean by this? Do you believe his argument? Why or why not? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * On page 2 of A Treatise of Human Nature, under Part III, of Virtue & Vice in General, Section 2, Moral Distinctions not derived from reason, Hume claims that one's perception controls all actions. This perception is naturally formulated by judgment. Hume is quoted as saying, "to approve of one's character, to condemn another [alternatively], are only so many different perceptions" (pg 2.). This means that one person's perception is influenced by their judgment (naturally, judgment is emotional) - as opposed to the neutral concept of reasoning.


 * Hume is saying that the mere inherent "goodness" or "badness" of a certain action cannot serve as the motivator behind a certain action. For example, Hume would disagree with the notion that I'm responding to this discussion board because it is inherently the right thing to do. Hume would, instead, agree with the notion that since I'm passionate about my good grades in this class, I am responding to this discussion board with 100% effort. This means that one's emotions or passions are the reason behind them doing something. Reasoning cannot go against this passion - because it makes no sense to say that I am passionate about my good score because I believe getting a good score in a class is not good.


 * I personally agree with Hume's reasoning. The world is full of disagreements on morality. Reasoning is a neutral concept - but is not plausible. Everyone's "moral" views are based on their emotions/passions (aka perspective). It is impossible to believe that perceptions are not influenced by one's emotions, so I'm taking Hume's perspective for this case.


 * —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)