Name: Alexios BraoudakisStudent Code: 109028017ab1566@york.ac.ukPolitics, Philosophy and Economics (PEP)Ethics I Year OneGroup 13: Elisabeth Thorsson

Question:

Does Hume have a good reason for denying that moral distinctions are determined by reason?

In the book A treatise of the human nature David Hume tries to analyse that moral distinctions and values (of good and evil) are not merely determined by our reasoning. His main concern is to answer: whether it be possible, from reason alone, to distinguish betwixt moral good and evil, or whether there must concur some other principles to enable us to make that distinction. Reason is a useful tool to explain them, but insufficient to create viable grounds for their justification. His main argument is that moral decisions, specifically moral distinctions, are not determined by our reason but by our passions; passions, which can be illustrated through reason but not fully understood without underlying human nature and thus human feelings. In this essay I will try to explain and evaluate the key concepts and ideas about moral distinctions that Hume proposes in the Treatise of Human Nature.Hume starts his argument by analysing that moral distinctions affect everyday actions. These decisions (i.e. on how we identify something as morally correct or not) do not affect everyday actions. Thus, as he argues, moral values morality itself is not based on reason, but rather in something more difficult to determine. Passion itself. The causation and direct effect of our beliefs and actions are an intertwined with objects that we experience. They are in a way objects that we are interested in; they are thus either a result of pleasure or pain. Hume adds that actions cannot be explained in a reason based criteria process (thus, we cannot judge whether actions are reasonable or unreasonable) as actions are affected by our passions, and passion is affected by our pain and/or pleasure. As he argues reason is and should be the slave of passions.Hume ascribes moral decisions to the passions for several reasons. In order to illustrate his argument he presents examples as: the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, murder. He turns down the idea of reason been a reliable way by examining the case of murder. Take any action allowd to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Hume examines his feelings about murder. He explains that he cannot distinguish between his feelings about it and a clear and distinct opinion about it. That is what happens to each and every one of us. In a deep introversive search of our feelings we find that we dislike murder just because we feel pain. As a result he argues, as we would argue as well, that moral values are interrelated with passions, without excluding reason to be a helpful tool to identify feelings passions origins. Murder is justified as a bad action at a universal level.In his description of passions, Hume explains analytically both direct and indirect passions. In the first class he adds desire, joy, hope, fear whereas in the second pride, love, hatred. For him passions are neither something real in their nature, nor can cause contradictions and thus they are completely different from reason. Hence, we cannot categorize them as reasonable or unreasonable. Morality in that sense is not accompanied by our God-given reason. Reason works in two ways: either directing passions to focus into objects or by discovering connections between events, which eventually create passions. Judgment on acting, thus, might be reasonable or not but judgment must be based on passions or feelings to be fully complete.But are our actions always based on passions? As D.D. Raphael would argue moral judgments are based on reason. In order to identify an action as moral or immoral we do not have to perform it, we could be in that sense judgers of others actions. In that sense the premise that Hume made (i.e. that morality influences actions) is rejected. Hence we can reject that morality is might be based on reason as well. But we could counter-argue that we might use reason to judge but we need something more to understand it.Even though we can fully understand the objections that came up, we can argue that Humes idea of transcendence of morality through our passions is indeed a clear and precise. It involves a combination of reason, been a necessary tool to explain and analyse moral right and wrong, but also passions which create the grounds of universal moral values such as repulsion of the action murder. It is for Hume and me that moral values are based to our passions, our pain, our happiness.Word Count: 740

1