http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=david-hume-morality Anthology of Ideas is an archive of thoughts and form. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:37:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-77574 grid inverters Thu, 26 May 2011 05:56:29 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-77574 nice post ..... really great :) nice post ….. really great

]]> http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-73507 Hot Water Systems Mon, 04 Apr 2011 06:56:57 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-73507 nice post thanks for sharing this article nice post thanks for sharing this article

]]> http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-57030 Justin Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:36:44 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-57030 Buddhism didn't work out so well for Tiger Woods. Buddhism didn’t work out so well for Tiger Woods.

]]> http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-50470 Buddhism Facts Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:39:41 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-50470 Buddhism spiritual practice added value to our life and Buddhism that many practitioners say they bring to their business lives Buddhism spiritual practice added value to our life and Buddhism that many practitioners say they bring to their business lives

]]> http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-45203 Jon Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:54:44 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-45203 Well who decides what the "right" reasoning is, then??? And, whatta ya mean by "natural law?" Are you referring to the Catholic church's "Natural Law", or the Stoic's "Natural Law?" Well who decides what the “right” reasoning is, then???
And, whatta ya mean by “natural law?”
Are you referring to the Catholic church’s “Natural Law”, or the Stoic’s “Natural Law?”

]]> http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-45201 Bruce Barron Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:44:41 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-45201 The basis of morality is right reasoning and the natural law. The basis of morality is right reasoning and the natural law.

]]> http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-45123 benivolent Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:08:25 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-45123 Nice posting Nice posting

]]> http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-43234 jon Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:06:28 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-43234 Hi Bruce Hume says that senses cannot judge of morality. Then you say, "but neither are sentiments the judge of morality." What, then, is the basis of morality? Jon Hi Bruce
Hume says that senses cannot judge of morality. Then you say, “but neither are sentiments the judge of morality.” What, then, is the basis of morality?
Jon

]]> http://anthologyoi.com/sociology/david-hume-morality.html/comment-page-1#comment-42484 Bruce Barron Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:14:45 +0000 http://anthologyoi.com/?p=370#comment-42484 Hume is correct in stating all knowledge comes through the senses. Only rational creatures know the difference between right and wrong.Dogs and cats are not moral or rational beings.They know nothing about right or wrong. With respect to the stealing of the apple. He said that one could not find the vice in the facts of the situation.We know from experience that this is wrong and it is self evident that it is wrong.In every act there is the act itself to be considered,the motive,and circumstances.To say that an act's morality is based only on sentiment formed from some internal sentiment is to deny objective reality and truth and to state that morality is relative.Anyone who honestly evaluates this position sees immediately that this position is false. Right and wrong are not feelings determining whether the act is right or wrong.One is able to determine by an act of judgement concerning the good or evil of an act.This would be Hume's act of reflection but it is still a mere sentiment that arises.It is the reason itself that judges of its own act and the acts of others. Hume denys this. His example of the apple and the perception of it being red and his denial of it being a property of an apple and then to state one cannot even be sure that it is an apple is absurd.Of course Hume is speaking of secondary qualities when he speaks of color and the like which do not provide objective facts which is an absurd claim as is evident to the senses. His notion that the apple might not even exist is equally absurd when presented to the senses.For Hume there is no concept of abstraction possible. For Hume morality is subjective and cannot be objective. Hume is right is saying that the senses cannot judge of morality but neither are sentiments the judge of morality. For Hume morality is subjective.It's the way one feels about something that makes it right or wrong. There is no such thing as objectiive morality and morality is relative to one's sentiments. Colours must adhere in some real object.There is no such thing as the colour red floating around without being in a subject and this subject is objectively real. Hume denys this. And so do a lot of other thinkers of his kind. If one cannot find the vice in the facts of the situation then where does one come by the sentiments. It is true that the mind reflects on the situation and knows whether the act is right or wrong. His example of suicide does not prove sentiment. Suicide is wrong because it is willful self murder.This is a moral judgement.There are societies that condone suicide but this is due to a faulty judgement. It is true that actions can evoke certain feelings such as anger,joy etc. But these sentiments do not tell us whether the act done is right or wrong. It may feel very good and joyfull to have sex with your neighbor's wife but those do not determine the right or wrong of that act. With Hume it is difficult to say whether these sentiments are aquired or whether we are born with them. I for one disagree with this entire way of thinking. Hume is correct in stating all knowledge comes through the senses. Only rational creatures know the difference between right and wrong.Dogs and cats are not moral or rational beings.They know nothing about right or wrong.
With respect to the stealing of the apple. He said that one could not find the vice in the facts of the situation.We know from experience that this is wrong and it is self evident that it is wrong.In every act there is the act itself to be considered,the motive,and circumstances.To say that an act’s morality is based only on sentiment formed from some internal sentiment is to deny objective reality and truth and to state that morality is relative.Anyone who honestly evaluates this position sees immediately that this position is false.
Right and wrong are not feelings determining whether the act is right or wrong.One is able to determine by an act of judgement concerning the good or evil of an act.This would be Hume’s act of reflection but it is still a mere sentiment that arises.It is the reason itself that judges of its own act and the acts of others. Hume denys this.
His example of the apple and the perception of it being red and his denial of it being a property of an apple and then to state one cannot even be sure that it is an apple
is absurd.Of course Hume is speaking of secondary qualities when he speaks of color and the like which do not provide objective facts which is an absurd claim as is evident to the senses.
His notion that the apple might not even exist is equally absurd when presented to the senses.For Hume there is no concept of abstraction possible. For Hume morality is subjective and cannot be objective.
Hume is right is saying that the senses cannot judge of morality but neither are sentiments the judge of morality.
For Hume morality is subjective.It’s the way one feels about something that makes it right or wrong. There is no such thing as objectiive morality and morality is relative to one’s sentiments.
Colours must adhere in some real object.There is no such thing as the colour red floating around without being in a subject and this subject is objectively real. Hume denys this. And so do a lot of other thinkers of his kind.
If one cannot find the vice in the facts of the situation then where does one come by the sentiments.
It is true that the mind reflects on the situation and knows whether the act is right or wrong.
His example of suicide does not prove sentiment. Suicide is wrong because it is willful self murder.This is a moral judgement.There are societies that condone suicide but this is due to a faulty judgement.
It is true that actions can evoke certain feelings such as anger,joy etc. But these sentiments do not tell us whether the act done is right or wrong. It may feel very good and joyfull to have sex with your neighbor’s wife but those do not determine the right or wrong of that act.
With Hume it is difficult to say whether these sentiments are aquired or whether we are born with them.
I for one disagree with this entire way of thinking.

]]>