You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
jpwright87 's review for:
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
by David Hume
Rather than nailing down his definitions, Hume begins with what he says are observations of fact. From this is drawn a moral theory based on sentiments. We feel something is a virtue or vice, despite the fact that reason will often judge more specifically afterwards. In fact, reason alone will never lead to a clear moral theory. What exactly is virtuous seems to come down, mostly, to utility. Our moral sentiments can't all be clearly explained according to utility, but for all intents and purposes, it works. Also, from simple observation we find that people act from altruism all the time and we need not stoop to "verbal argument" in order to accept that.
I don't know enough about Hume to say too much, but I was surprised that I found Hume's theorizing to be so middle-class, so bourgeois. I suppose it's all part of the Enlightenment return to passive reason and the abandonment of superstition and religious enthusiasm. Because of this, it feels like he oversimplifies humanity when he says things like, "Well of course nobody would give their life to a cause. That's just crazy." Real virtue is setting up your vanity to pay off psychologically in a way that also makes you look like the soul of wit and good manners among your peers. Blech (It's entirely possible/probable that I represent the later Romantic backlash against the Enlightment. I find Don Quixote admirable, for instance.). Moral heroes always have a tinge of craziness to them, I would hold. But Hume avoids that by saying that these moral exemplars merely made large additions of utility to their society. He makes observations that certainly seem correct, like how we care much more about the abilities that increase our pride in ourselves than the ones that increase our moral/selfless virtues. But still, I can't help thinking that his job isn't complete. His observations come together in a way that leaves a pretty vague picture of many important moral concepts.
I don't know enough about Hume to say too much, but I was surprised that I found Hume's theorizing to be so middle-class, so bourgeois. I suppose it's all part of the Enlightenment return to passive reason and the abandonment of superstition and religious enthusiasm. Because of this, it feels like he oversimplifies humanity when he says things like, "Well of course nobody would give their life to a cause. That's just crazy." Real virtue is setting up your vanity to pay off psychologically in a way that also makes you look like the soul of wit and good manners among your peers. Blech (It's entirely possible/probable that I represent the later Romantic backlash against the Enlightment. I find Don Quixote admirable, for instance.). Moral heroes always have a tinge of craziness to them, I would hold. But Hume avoids that by saying that these moral exemplars merely made large additions of utility to their society. He makes observations that certainly seem correct, like how we care much more about the abilities that increase our pride in ourselves than the ones that increase our moral/selfless virtues. But still, I can't help thinking that his job isn't complete. His observations come together in a way that leaves a pretty vague picture of many important moral concepts.