Ethical Anti-rationalism


Admin jebidal.com pada kesempatan kali ini akan mencoba membahas tentang Ethical Anti-rationalism

Silahkan langsung Copypaste saja, tetapi baiknya di teliti dulu barang kali ada yang salah ketik baik judul maupun isi postingan Ethical Anti-rationalism, jika sudah yakin silahkan dipergunakan sebagaimana mestinya, jika anda beruntung ada link downloadnya, jangan ragu dan bimbang lansung download saja, semoga blog ini memberi manfaat.

Alangkah baiknya Anda membaca dengan teliti, supaya apa apa yang ada di blog ini bisa bermanfaat, jika hasil dari postingan di blog ini kurang memuaskan, silahkan cari di kotak pencarian [Search Here] atau [Search], kalau tidak salah admin taro di bawah artikel postingan [untuk view handphone/ smartphone atau sejenisnya] dan bagian samping kanan [untuk view via destop/ PC/ Laptop dan sejenisnya], dan semoga hasil dari pencarian blog ini dapat mempermudah Anda dalam menjelajah isi blog jebidal.com ini. selamat berselancar.

Postingan Lainnya yang berhubungan dengan Ethical Anti-rationalism

  • Contoh Soal Anggaran Produksi dan Penyelesaiannya
  • Hadits Tentang Larangan Korupsi dan Kolusi
  • Faktor Penyebab Terjadinya Monopoli
  • makalah tentang pajak kendaraan bermotor
  • Makalah SUMBER-SUMBER HUKUM ISLAM
  • PENGERTIAN BERKAH
  • Makalah Manajemen Perpustakaan
  • Makalah Kecerdasan Matematis Logis
  • semoga dengan mengunjungi jebidal.com, anda mendapatkan informasi menarik dan dapat bermanfaat bagi anda, dalam situs jebidal.com menitik beratkan pembahasan yang berkaitan dengan pendidikasn, seperti makalah, materi pelajaran, contoh soal ujian dengan jawabannya, contoh skripsi, contoh tesis, dan info menarik serta unik lainnya. Anda sedang membaca postingan yang berjudul Ethical Anti-rationalism
    Admin jebidal.com juga mempermudah pengunjung untuk mendapatkan manfaat dari blog jebidal.com, silahkan jelajahi setiap sudut dari blog ini, semoga menemukan yang Anda cari. Selamat menelusuri blog ini. Anda sedang membaca postingan yang berjudul Ethical Anti-rationalism.

    Jika Anda ingin mendapatkan update dari blog jebidal.com, silahkan follow twitter @jebidal, ini link langsungnya @jebidal
    Jika Anda lebih suka mainan facebook jangan ragu untuk like fan page jebidal.com ini link langsungnya Jebidal.com on Facebook
    dan jika Anda lebih betah menggunakan akun Gplus Anda, jebidal.com juga punya silahkan follow saja, ini link langsungnya jebidal.com on Gplus

    Mari Kita simak lebih detailnya tentang Ethical Anti-rationalism

    Ethical Anti-rationalism
    Hume’s Moral Philosophy

    4. Ethical Anti-rationalism

    In part because he is convinced that reason alone cannot motivate action, and in part for other reasons, Hume claims that moral distinctions are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment. His rejection of ethical rationalism is at least two-fold. Moral rationalists tend to say, first, that moral properties are discovered by reason, and also that moral goodness is in accord with reason (even that goodness consists in reasonableness) and moral evil is unreasonable. Hume rejects both theses. Some of his arguments are apparently directed to one and some to the other thesis, but ambiguities in the text make it unclear which he means to attack in certain places.

    In the Treatise he argues against the epistemic thesis (that we discover good and evil by reasoning) by showing that neither demonstrative nor probable/causal reasoning has vice and virtue as its proper objects. Demonstrative reasoning discovers relations of ideas, and vice and virtue are not identical with any of the four philosophical relations (resemblance, contrariety, degrees in quality, or proportions in quantity and number) whose presence can be demonstrated. Nor can they be identical with any other abstract relation; for such relations can also obtain between items such as trees that are incapable of moral good or evil. Furthermore, were moral vice and virtue discerned by demonstrative reasoning, such reasoning would have to reveal their inherent power to cause volitions in all who discern them; but no causal connections can be discovered a priori. Causal reasoning, by contrast, does infer matters of fact pertaining to actions, in particular their causes and effects; but the vice of an action (its wickedness) is not found in such matters, but only in the sentiments of the observer. Therefore moral good and evil are not discovered by reason alone.

    However, much attention in the Treatise is devoted to establishing the other anti-rationalist thesis, that virtue is not the same as reasonableness and vice is not contrary to reason. Hume gives two arguments to this end. The first he says follows directly from the Representation Argument, whose conclusion was that passions, volitions, and actions can be neither reasonable nor unreasonable. Actions, he observes, can be laudable or blamable. Therefore it follows that “[l]audable and blameable are not the same with reasonable or unreasonable” (T 458). The properties are not identical.

    The second and more famous Motivation Argument makes use of the prior conclusion that reason alone cannot motivate action. As we have seen, reason alone “can never immediately prevent or produce any action by contradicting or approving of it” (T 458). Morality — this argument goes on — influences our passions and actions: we are often impelled to or deterred from action by our opinions of obligation or injustice. Therefore morals cannot be derived from reason alone. This argument is first introduced as showing it impossible “from reason alone… to distinguish betwixt moral good and evil” (T 457) — that is, it is billed as establishing the epistemic thesis. But Hume also says that, like the little direct argument above, it proves that “actions do not derive their merit from a conformity to reason, nor their blame from a contrariety to it” (T458).

    The Motivation Argument concludes that moral judgments or evaluations are not the products of reason alone, either demonstrative or probable. From this many draw the sweeping conclusion that for Hume moral evaluations are not beliefs or opinions of any kind, but lack all cognitive content. That is, they take the Motivation Argument to show that Hume holds a non-propositional view of moral evaluations — and indeed, given his sentimentalism, that he is an emotivist. Such a reading should be met with caution, however. For Hume, to say that something is not a product of reason is not equivalent to saying it is not a truth-evaluable judgment or belief. Hume does not regard all our (propositional) beliefs and opinions to be products of reason; some arise directly from sense perception, for example, and some from sympathy. Also, perhaps there are (propositional) beliefs we acquire via probable reasoning but not by such reasoning alone. One possible example is the belief that some object is a cause of pleasure, a belief we reach by means of prior impressions of reflection plus probable reasoning.

    Another concern about the Motivation Argument is how it could be sound. In order for it to yield its conclusion, its premise that morality (or a moral judgment) influences the will must be construed to say that moral evaluations alone motivate us to action, without the help of some (further) passion. This is a controversial claim and not one of which Hume offers any defense. The premise that reason alone cannot influence action is also difficult to interpret. Presumably, given his prior arguments for this claim (e.g. that the mere discovery of a causal relation does not produce an impulse to act), Hume means by it not only that the faculty of reason or the activity of reasoning alone cannot motivate, but also that the conclusions of such activity alone (such as recognition of a relation of ideas or belief in a causal connection) cannot motivate. Yet it is hard to see how Hume, given his theory of causation, can argue that no mental item of a certain type (such as a causal belief) can possibly cause motivating passion or action. Such a claim could not be supported a priori. And in Treatise 1.3.10, “Of the influence of belief,” he seems to observe that some causal beliefs do exactly that. It is possible that Hume only means to say, in the premise that reason alone cannot influence action, that reasoning processes cannot generate actions as their logical conclusions; but that would introduce an equivocation, as he surely does not mean to say, in the other premise, that moral evaluations generate actions as their logical conclusions. The transition from premises to conclusion also seems to rely on a principle of transitivity (If A alone cannot produce X and B produces X, then A alone cannot produce B), which needs defense but receives none.

    5. Is and ought

    Hume famously closes the section of the Treatise that argues against moral rationalism by observing that other systems of moral philosophy, proceeding in the ordinary way of reasoning, at some point make an unremarked transition from premises linked only by “is” to propositions linked by “ought” (expressing a new relation) — a deduction that seems to Hume “altogether inconceivable” (T3.1.1.27). Attention to this transition would “subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason” (ibid.).

    Few passages in Hume’s work have generated more interpretive controversy.

    On the orthodox reading Hume says here that no ought-judgment may be correctly inferred from a set of premises expressed only in terms of ‘is,’ and the vulgar systems of morality commit this logical fallacy. This is usually thought to mean something much more general: that no ethical or indeed evaluative conclusion whatsoever may be validly inferred from any set of purely factual premises. A number of present-day philosophers, including R. M. Hare, endorse this putative thesis of logic, calling it “Hume’s Law.” (As Francis Snare observes, on this reading Hume must simply assume that no purely factual propositions are themselves evaluative, as he does not argue for this.) Some interpreters think Hume commits himself here to a non-propositional or noncognitivist view of moral judgment — the view that moral judgments do not state facts and are not truth-evaluable. (If Hume has already used the Motivation Argument to establish noncognitivism, then the is/ought paragraph may merely draw out a trivial consequence of it. If moral evaluations are merely feelings without propositional content, then of course they cannot be inferred from any propositional premises.) Some see the paragraph as denying ethical realism, excluding values from the domain of facts.

    Other interpreters — the more cognitivist ones — see the paragraph about ‘is’ and ‘ought’ as doing none of the above. Some read it as simply providing further support for Hume’s extensive argument that moral properties are not discernible by demonstrative reason, leaving open whether ethical evaluations may be conclusions of valid probable arguments. Others interpret it as making a point about the original discovery of virtue and vice, which must involve the use of sentiment. On this view, one cannot make the initial discovery of moral properties by inference from nonmoral premises using reason alone; rather, one requires some input from sentiment. However, on this reading it is compatible with the is/ought paragraph that once a person has the moral concepts as the result of prior experience of the moral sentiments, he or she may reach moral conclusions by inference from causal, factual premises (stated in terms of ‘is’) about the effects of character traits on the sentiments of observers. They point out that Hume himself makes such inferences frequently in his writings.

    6. The Nature of Moral Judgment

    On Hume’s view, what is a moral evaluation? Three main interpretations have strong textual support. First, the nonpropositional view says that for Hume a moral evaluation does not express any proposition or state any fact. Either it gives vent to a feeling, or it is itself a feeling. (A more refined form of this interpretation allows that moral evaluations have some propositional content, but claims that for Hume their essential feature, as evaluations, is non-propositional.) The subjective description view, by contrast, says that for Hume moral evaluations describe the feelings of the spectator, or the feelings a spectator would have were she to contemplate the trait or action from the common point of view. Often grouped with the latter view is the dispositional interpretation, which understands moral evaluations as factual judgments to the effect that the evaluated trait or action is so constituted as to cause feelings of approval or disapproval in a (suitably characterized) spectator. On the dispositional view, in saying some trait is good we attribute to the trait the dispositional property of being such as to elicit approval. There is some textual support for each reading.

    7. Sympathy, and the Nature and Origin of the Moral Sentiments

    Our moral evaluations of persons and their character traits, on Hume’s positive view, arise from our sentiments. The virtues and vices are those traits the disinterested contemplation of which produces approval and disapproval, respectively, in whoever contemplates the trait, whether the trait’s possessor or another. These moral sentiments are emotions (in the present-day sense of that term) with a unique phenomenological quality, and also with a special set of causes. They are caused by contemplating the person or action to be evaluated without regard to our self-interest, and from a common or general perspective that compensates for any distortion in the observer’s sympathies resulting from physical or temporal closeness to or distance from the person judged, or extra degrees of resemblance (in language, appearance, or the like). Approval (approbation) is a pleasure, and disapproval (disapprobation) a pain or uneasiness. The moral sentiments are typically calm rather than violent, although they can be intensified as a result of our awareness of the moral responses of others. They are the sort of pleasure and uneasiness that are associated with the passions of pride and humility, love and hatred: when we feel moral approval for another we tend to love or esteem her, and when we approve a trait of our own we are proud of it. Some interpreters analyze the moral sentiments as themselves forms of these four passions; others argue that Hume’s moral sentiments are pleasures and pains that tend to cause the latter passions. We distinguish which traits are virtuous and which are vicious by means of our feelings of approval (approbation) and disapproval (disapprobation) toward the traits; our approval of actions is derived from approval of the traits we believe to have given rise to them. We can determine, by observing the various sorts of traits toward which we feel approval, that every such trait — every virtue — has at least one of the following four characteristics: it is either immediately agreeable to the person who has it or to others, or it is useful (advantageous over the longer term) to its possessor or to others. Vices prove to have the parallel features: they are either immediately disagreeable or disadvantageous either to the person who has them or to others. These are not definitions of ‘virtue’ and ‘vice’ but empirical generalizations about the traits as first identified by their effects on the moral sentiments.

    In the Treatise Hume details the causes of the moral sentiments, in doing so explaining why agreeable and advantageous traits prove to be the ones that generate approval. He claims that the sentiments of moral approval and disapproval are caused by the operations of sympathy, a psychological mechanism that enables one person to receive by communication the sentiments of another.

    Sympathy in general operates as follows. First, observation of the effects of another person’s “affection” and its outward expressions in his “countenance and conversation” conveys the idea of his passion into my mind. So does observing the typical cause of a passion: if we contemplate the instruments laid out for another’s surgery, even someone unknown to us, they evoke ideas in us of fear and pain. Now, we at all times possess a maximally vivid and forceful impression of ourselves. According to Hume’s associationism, vivacity of one perception is automatically transferred to those others that are related to it by resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. The relations relevant here are primarily resemblance and contiguity. All human beings, regardless of their differences, are generally similar in body and in their possession of parallel passions. The observed or considered person and myself may further resemble one another in more specific shared features such as character or nationality. Because of the resemblance and my contiguity to the observed person, the idea of his passion is associated in my mind with my impression of myself, and acquires great vivacity from it. The sole difference between an idea and an impression is the degree of liveliness or vivacity each possesses. So great is this acquired vivacity that the idea of his passion in my mind becomes an impression, and I actually experience the passion. When I come to share in the affections of strangers, and feel pleasure because they are pleased, as I do when I experience an aesthetic enjoyment of a well-designed ship or fertile field that is not my own, that pleasure of mine can only be caused by sympathy (T 2.2.2-8, 3.3.1.7-8). Similarly, Hume argues, when we reflect upon a character or mental quality knowing its tendency either to the benefit or enjoyment of strangers or to their harm or uneasiness, we come to feel enjoyment when the trait is beneficial or agreeable to them, and uneasiness when the trait is harmful or disagreeable to them. This reaction of ours to the tendency of a character trait to affect the sentiments of strangers (those with whom we have no special affectionate ties) can only be explained by sympathy.

    We greatly approve the artificial virtues (justice with respect to property, allegiance to government, and the laws of nations, of modesty, and of good manners), which (Hume argues) are inventions contrived solely for the interest of society. We approve them in all times and places, even where our own interest is not at stake, solely for their tendency to benefit the whole society of that time or place. This instance confirms that “the reflecting on the tendency of characters and mental qualities, is sufficient to give us the sentiments of approbation and blame” (T 3.3.1.9). The sympathy-generated pleasure, then, is the moral approbation we feel toward these traits of character. We find the character traits — the causes — agreeable because they are the means to ends we find agreeable as a result of sympathy. Hume extends this analysis to the approval of most of the natural virtues. Those traits of which we approve naturally (without any social contrivance), such as beneficence, clemency, and moderation, also tend to the good of society. So our approval of those can be explained in precisely the same way, via sympathy with the pleasure of those who receive benefit. And since the imagination is more struck by what is particular than by what is general, manifestations of the natural virtues, which directly benefit any individual to whom they are directed, are even more apt to give pleasure via sympathy than are the manifestations of justice, which may harm identifiable individuals in some cases though they contribute to a pattern of action beneficial to society as a whole (T 3.3.1.13).

    8. The Common Point of View

    As we saw, the moral sentiments are produced by sympathy with those affected by a trait or action. Such sympathetically-acquired feelings are distinct from our self-interested responses, and an individual of discernment learns to distinguish her moral sentiments (which are triggered by contemplating another’s character trait “in general”) from the pleasure or uneasiness she may feel when responding to a trait with reference to her “particular interest,” for example when another’s strength of character makes him a formidable opponent (T 3.1.2.4).

    However, the sympathetic transmission of sentiments can vary in effectiveness depending upon the degree of resemblance and contiguity between the observer and the person with whom he sympathizes. I receive the sentiments of someone very much like me or very close to me far more strongly than I do those of someone unlike me or farther away. Yet the moral assessments we make do not vary depending upon whether the person we evaluate resembles us in language, sex, or temperament, or is near or far. Indeed, our moral assessments of people remain stable even though our position with respect to them changes over time. Furthermore, sympathy only brings us people’s actual sentiments or what we believe to be their actual sentiments; yet we feel moral approval of character traits that we know produce no real happiness for anyone, because, for example, their possessor is isolated in a prison. To handle these objections to the sympathy theory, and to explain more generally how, on a sentiment-based ethical theory, moral evaluations made by one individual at different times and many individuals in a community tend to be fairly uniform, Hume claims that people do not make their moral judgments from their own individual points of view, but instead select “some common point of view, from which they might survey their object, and which might cause it to appear the same to all of them” (T 3.3.1.30). At least with respect to natural virtues and vices, this common point of view is composed of the intimate perspectives of the various individuals who have direct interactions with the person being evaluated. To make a moral evaluation I must sympathize with each of these persons in their dealings with the subject of my evaluation; the blame or praise I give as a result of this imaginative exercise is my genuine moral assessment of the subject’s character. In that assessment I also overlook the small external accidents of fortune that might render an individual’s trait ineffectual, and respond to traits that render a character typically “fitted to be beneficial to society,” even if circumstances do not permit it to cause that benefit (T 3.3.1.20). Thus I acquire by sympathy the pleasure or uneasiness that I imagine people would feel were the trait able to operate as it ordinarily does. “Experience soon teaches us this method of correcting our sentiments, or at least, of correcting our language, where the sentiments are more stubborn and inalterable” (T 3.3.1.16).

    9. Artificial and Natural Virtues

    The standard object of moral evaluation is a “quality of mind,” a character trait. (As we have seen, for Hume evaluation of an action is derived from evaluation of the inner quality we infer to have given rise to it.) The typical moral judgment is that some trait, such as a particular person’s benevolence or laziness, is a virtue or a vice. A character trait, for Hume, is a psychological disposition consisting of a tendency to feel a certain sentiment or combination of sentiments, ones that often move their possessor to action. We reach a moral judgment by feeling approval or disapproval upon contemplating the trait in a disinterested way from the common point of view. So moral approval is a favorable sentiment in the observer elicited by the observed person’s disposition to have certain motivating sentiments.

    In the Treatise Hume emphasizes that “our sense of every kind of virtue is not natural; but … there are some virtues, that produce pleasure and approbation by means of an artifice or contrivance, which arises from the circumstances and necessities of mankind” (T 3.2.1.1). He divides the virtues into those that are natural — in that our approval of them does not depend upon any cultural inventions or jointly-made social rules — and those that are artificial (dependent both for their existence as character traits and for their ethical merit on the presence of conventional rules for the common good), and he gives separate accounts of the two kinds. The traits he calls natural virtues are more refined and completed forms of those human sentiments we could expect to find even in people who belonged to no society but cooperated only within small familial groups. The traits he calls artificial virtues are the ones we need for successful impersonal cooperation; our natural sentiments are too partial to give rise to these without intervention. In the Treatise Hume includes among the artificial virtues honesty with respect to property (which he often calls equity or “justice,” though it is a strangely narrow use of the term), fidelity to promises (sometimes also listed under “justice”), allegiance to one’s government, conformity to the laws of nations (for princes), chastity (refraining from non-marital sex) and modesty (both primarily for women and girls), and good manners. A great number of individual character traits are listed as natural virtues, but the main types discussed in detail are greatness of mind (“a hearty pride, or self-esteem, if well-concealed and well-founded,” T 3.2.2.11), goodness or benevolence (an umbrella category covering generosity, gratitude, friendship, and more), and such natural abilities as prudence and wit, which, Hume argues, have a reasonably good claim to be included under the title moral virtue, though traditionally they are not. Hume does not explicitly draw a distinction between artificial and natural virtues in the moral Enquiry.

    In the Treatise Hume argues in turn that the virtues of material honesty and of faithfulness to promises and contracts are artificial, not natural virtues. Both arguments fall into at least two stages: one to show that if we think of the given character trait as existing and winning our approval without help from any mutual social arrangement, paradoxes arise; and another, longer stage to explain how the relevant convention might have come into being and to refute those with a different genetic story. He also explains the social construction of the other artificial virtues and what social good they serve.

    10. Honesty with respect to Property

    10.1 The Circle

    Hume offers a rather cryptic argument to show that our approval of material honesty must be the product of collaborative human effort (convention). When we approve an action, he says, we regard it merely as the sign of the motivating passion in the agent’s “mind and temper” that produced it; our evaluation of the action is derived from our assessment of this inner motive. Therefore all actions deemed virtuous derive their goodness only from virtuous motives — motives we approve. It follows from this that the motive that originally “bestows a merit on any action” can never be moral approval of that action (awareness of its virtue), but must be a non-moral, motivating psychological state — that is, a state distinct from the “regard to the virtue” of an action (moral approval or disapproval) (T 3.2.1.4). For if the virtue-bestowing motive of the action were the agent’s sense that the act would be virtuous to do — if that were why he did it, and why we approved it — then we would be reasoning in a vicious circle: we would approve of the action derivatively, because we approve of the agent’s motive, and this motive would consist of approval of the action, which can only be based on approval of a motive… The basis of our approval could not be specified. For every virtue, therefore, there must be in human nature some non-moral motive that characteristically motivates actions expressive of that virtue, which motive, by eliciting our approval, makes the actions so motivated virtuous. The virtue of a action of this species would be established by its being done from this non-moral motive, and only then could an agent also or alternatively be moved so to act by her derivative regard to the virtue of the act. However, Hume observes that there is no morally approved (and so virtue-bestowing), non-moral motive of honest action. The only approved, reliable motive that we can find for acts of “equity” is a moral one, the sense of virtue or “regard to the honesty” of the actions. The honest individual repays a loan not (merely) out of self-interest or concern for the well-being of the lender (who may be a “profligate debauchee” who will reap only harm from his possessions), but from a “regard to justice, and abhorrence of villainy and knavery” (T 3.2.1.9, 13). This, however, is “evident sophistry and reasoning in a circle…” Now nature cannot have “establish’d a sophistry, and render’d it necessary and unavoidable…”; therefore, “the sense of justice and injustice is not deriv’d from nature, but arises artificially… from education, and human conventions” (T 3.2.1.17). Whatever, exactly, the logic of this argument is supposed to be, Hume’s intent is to show that if we imagine equity to be a natural virtue we commit ourselves to a sophistry, and therefore honesty is instead man-made.

    Hume offers an account of the genesis of the social convention that on his view creates honesty with respect to property, and this is meant to cope in some way with the circularity he identifies. How it does so is a matter of interpretive controversy, as we will see.

    10.2 The Origin of Material Honesty

    Hume poses two questions about the rules of ownership of property and the associated virtue of material honesty: what is the artifice by which human beings create them, and why do we attribute moral goodness and evil to the observance and neglect of these rules?

    By nature human beings have many desires but are individually ill-equipped with strength, natural weapons, or natural skills to satisfy them. We can remedy these natural defects by means of social cooperation: combination of strength, division of labor, and mutual aid in times of individual fragility. People think of the idea to form a society as a consequence of their experience with the small family groups into which they are born, groups united initially by sexual attraction and familial love, but illustrating the practical advantages of working together with others. However, in the conditions of moderate scarcity in which we find ourselves, and given the portable nature of the goods we desire, our untrammeled greed and naturally “confined generosity” (generosity to those dear to us in preference to others) tends to create conflict or undermine cooperation, destroying collaborative arrangements among people who are not united by ties of affection, and leaving us all materially poor. No remedy for this natural partiality is to be found in “our natural uncultivated ideas of morality” (T 3.2.2.8); an invention is needed.

    Hume argues that we create the rules of ownership of property originally in order to satisfy our avidity for possessions for ourselves and our loved ones, by linking material goods more securely to particular individuals so as to avoid conflict. Within small groups of cooperators, individuals signal to one another a willingness to conform to a simple rule: to refrain from the material goods others come to possess by labor or good fortune, provided those others will observe the same restraint toward them. (This rule will in time require more detail: specific rules determining who may enjoy which goods initially and how goods may be transferred.) This signalling is not a promise (which cannot occur without another, similar convention), but an expression of conditional intention. The usefulness of such a custom is so obvious that others will soon catch on and express a similar intention, and the rest will fall in line. The convention develops tacitly, as do conventions of language and money. When an individual within such a small society violates this rule, the others are aware of it and exclude the offender from their cooperative activities. Once the convention is in place, justice (of this sort) is defined as conformity with the convention, injustice as violation of it; indeed, the convention defines property rights, ownership, financial obligation, theft, and related concepts, which had no application before the convention was introduced. So useful and obvious is this invention that human beings would not live for long in isolated family groups or in fluctuating larger groups with unstable possession of goods; their ingenuity would quickly enable them to invent property so as to reap the substantial economic benefits of cooperation in larger groups in which there would be reliable possession of the product, and they would thus better satisfy their powerful natural greed by regulating it with rules of justice.

    Greed, and more broadly, self-interest, is the motive for inventing property; but we need a further explanation why we think of justice (adherence to the rules of ownership) as virtuous, and injustice (their violation) as vicious. Hume accounts for the moralization of property as follows. As our society grows larger, we may cease to see our own property violations as a threat to the continued existence of a stable economic community, and this reduces our motivation to conform. But when we consider violations by others, we partake by sympathy in the uneasiness they cause to their victims and all of society. Such disinterested uneasiness, and the concomitant pleasure we feel on contemplating the public benefits of adherence, are instances of moral disapproval and approval. This we extend to our own behavior as a result of general rules. This process is “forwarded by the artifice of politicians” (T 3.2.2.25), who assist nature by inspiring esteem for justice and abhorrence of injustice in order to govern more easily. Private education assists in this further artifice. Thus material honesty becomes a virtue.

    10.3 The Motive of Honest Actions

    Does this account resolve the circularity problem? Is there any non-moral motive of honest action? Some interpreters say yes, it is greed redirected, which removes the circle. But this presents two difficulties: first, our greed is not in fact best satisfied by just action in every case, and second, Hume denies that this motive is approved. Some interpret Hume as coping with the first difficulty by supposing that politicians and parents deceive us into thinking, falsely, that every individual just act advances the interests of the agent; or that Hume himself mistakenly thought so, at least in the Treatise (see Baron, Haakonssen, and Gauthier). Others say there is no non-moral motive of honest action, and Hume escapes from the circle by relaxing this ostensibly universal requirement on virtuous types of behavior, limiting it to the naturally virtuous kinds. These interpreters either claim that there is no particular motive needed to evoke approval for conformity to the rules of property — mere behavior is enough (Mackie) — or that we approve of a new sort of motive, either a new pattern of practical reasoning (Darwall) or a motivating form of the moral sentiment itself (Cohon).

    Hume’s genetic account of property is striking for its lack of patriarchal assumptions about the family, its explicit denial that the creation of ownership does or can depend on any promise or contract, and its concept of convention as an informal practice of mutual compromise for mutual advantage that arises incrementally and entirely informally, without the use of central authority or force.

    11. Fidelity to Promises

    Fidelity is the virtue of being disposed to keep promises and contracts. Hume has in mind promises made “at arm’s length” that parties undertake to promote their own interest, not affectionate exchanges of favors between friends. While he sees the same circularity puzzle about the approved motive of fidelity that he tackles at length in connection with honesty, in the case of fidelity he focuses on a different conundrum that arises with the misguided attempt to analyze fidelity as a non-conventional (natural) virtue. Unlike Hobbes and Locke, who help themselves to the concept of a promise or contract in their imagined state of nature, Hume argues that the performative utterance “I promise” would be unintelligible in the absence of background social conventions, and that the moral obligation of a promise is dependent upon such conventions as well.

    Suppose the practice of giving and receiving promises did not depend on a socially-defined convention. In that case, what could we mean by the utterances we use to make them, and what would be the origin of our obligation to fulfill them? Where the words are used (uncharacteristically) in a way that does not purport to reveal the agent’s will, we do not understand a promise as really being made; we only take a speaker to have promised, and so to be bound to perform, if he understands the words he uses, in particular as purporting to obligate him. Thus for effective use there must be some act of the speaker’s mind expressed by the special phrase “I promise” and its synonyms, and our moral obligation results from this act of the mind. (This seems to be Hobbes’s assumption in Leviathan, where the implicit signs of covenant — as distinct from the explicit ones — are clear signs of the person’s will.) The requisite mental act or mental state, though, could not be one of mere desire or resolution to act, since it does not follow from our desiring or resolving to act that we are morally obligated to do so; nor could it be the volition to act, since that does not come into being ahead of time when we promise, but only when the time comes to act. And of course, one can promise successfully (incur obligation by promising) even though one has no intention to perform; so the mental act requisite to obligation is not that one. The only likely act of mind that might be expressed in a promise is a mental act of willing to be obligated to perform the promised action, as this conforms to our common view that we bind ourselves by choosing to be bound.

    But, Hume argues, it is absurd to think that one can actually bring an obligation into existence by willing to be obligated. What makes an action obligatory is that its omission is disapproved by unbiased observers. But no act of will within an agent can cause a previously neutral act to become one that engenders moral disapproval in observers (even in the agent herself). Sentiments are not subject to such voluntary control. Even on a moral rationalist view the thesis is absurd: to create a new obligation would be to change the abstract relations in which such objects as actions and persons stand to one another, and while one can do this by acting, surely one cannot do it by performing in one’s own mind an act of willing such a relation to exist. Thus, there is no such act of the mind. Even if people in their natural (pre-conventional) condition “cou’d perceive each other’s thoughts by intuition,” they could not understand one another to bind themselves by any act of promising, and could not be obligated thereby. Since the necessary condition for a natural obligation of promises cannot be fulfilled, we may conclude that this obligation is instead the product of group invention to serve the interests of society.

    Although the invention of property suffices to make possession stable and to introduce transfer by consent, as described so far it only permits simultaneous swapping of visible commodities. Great advantages could be gained by all if people could be counted on to provide goods or services later for benefits given now, or exchange goods that are distant or described generically. But for people without the capacity to obligate themselves to future action, such exchanges would depend upon one party performing first (presumably from self-interest) and the second performing in his turn out of gratitude alone; and since that motive cannot generally be counted on in self-interested transactions, people would hardly ever provide one another benefits of these kinds. Moralists and politicians cannot alter human selfishness and ingratitude, but they can teach us better to satisfy our appetites “in an oblique and artificial manner…” (T 3.2.5.9). First, people can easily recognize that additional kinds of mutual exchanges would serve their interests. They need only express this interest to one another in order to motivate everyone to invent and to keep such agreements. They create a form of words to mark these exchanges (and distinguish them from the generous reciprocal acts of friendship and gratitude). When someone utters this form of words, he is understood to express a resolution to do the action in question, and he “subjects himself to the penalty of never being trusted again in case of failure” (T 3.2.5.10), a penalty made possible by the practice of the group, who enforce the requirement to keep promises by the simple expedient of refusing to contract with those whose word cannot be trusted . This “concert or convention” (ibid.) alters human motives to act. One is moved by self-interest to give the promising sign (in order to obtain the other party’s cooperation), and once one has given it, self-interest demands that one do what one promised to do so as to insure that people will exchange promises with one in the future. Some interpreters say that this enlightened self-interest remains the only motive for keeping one’s promise, once the practice of promising has been created. But Hume says the sentiment of morals comes to play the same role in promise-keeping that it does in the development of honesty with respect to property (T 3.2.5.12); so there is evidence he thinks the moral sentiment not only becomes “annex’d” to promise-keeping but further motivates it. In larger, more anonymous communities, a further incentive is needed besides the fear of exclusion; and a sentiment of moral approval of promise-keeping arises as the result of sympathy with all who benefit from the practice, aided by a “second artifice,” the well-meaning psychological manipulation of the people by parents and politicians, yielding a near-universal admiration of fidelity and shame at breaking one’s word (T 3.2.5.12). This may yield a moral motive for promise-keeping even in anonymous transactions.

    12. Allegiance to Government

    A small society can maintain a subsistence-level economy without any dominion of some people over others, relying entirely on voluntary compliance with conventions of ownership, transfer of goods, and keeping of agreements, and relying on exclusion as the sole means of enforcement. But an increase in population and/or material productivity, Hume thinks, tends to stimulate a destabilizing rate of defection from the rules: more luxury goods greatly increase the temptation to act unjustly, and more anonymous transactions make it seem likely that one will get away with it. Though people are aware that injustice is destructive of social cooperation and so ultimately detrimental to their own interests, this knowledge will not enable them to resist such strong temptation, because of an inherent human weakness: we are more powerfully drawn to a near-term good even when we will pay for it with a greater long-term harm. This creates the need for government to enforce the rules of property and promise (the “laws of nature,” as Hume sometimes rather ironically calls them, since on his view they are not natural). This is the reason for the invention of government. Once in power, rulers can also make legitimate use of their authority to resolve disputes over just what the rules of justice require in particular cases, and to carry out projects for the common good such as building roads and dredging harbors.

    Hume thinks it unnecessary to prove that allegiance to government is the product of convention and not mere nature, since governments are obviously social creations. But he does need to explain the creation of governments and how they solve the problem he describes. He speculates that people who are unaccustomed to subordination in daily life might draw the idea for government from their experience of wars with other societies, when they must appoint a temporary commander. To overcome the preference for immediate gain over long-term security, the people will need to arrange social circumstances so that the conformity to justice is in people’s immediate interest. This cannot be done with respect to all the people, but it can be done for a few. So the people select magistrates (judges, kings, and the like) and so position them (presumably with respect to rank and wealth) that it will be in those magistrates’ immediate interest not only to follow but to enforce the rules of justice throughout society. Hume is vague about the motivation of the magistrates, but apparently they are so pleased with their own share of wealth and status that they are not tempted by the possessions of others; and since they are “indifferent… to the greatest part of the state,” they have no incentive to assist anyone in any crimes (T3.2.7.6). Thus the magistrates’ most immediate interest lies in preserving their own status and wealth by protecting society. (Perhaps more directly, they stand to lose their favored status if they are found by the people not to enforce the rules of justice.)

    It is possible for the people to agree to appoint magistrates in spite of the incurable human attraction to the contiguous good even when smaller than a remote good, because this only takes effect when the lesser good is immediately at hand. When planning for the future, people always prefer the greater good and make decisions accordingly. So looking to the future, people can decide now to empower magistrates to force them to conform to the rules of justice in the time to come. When the time comes and individuals are tempted to violate the rules, the threat this poses to society will not move them to desist, but the immediate efforts of the magistrates will.

    We initially obey our magistrates from self-interest. But once government is instituted, we come to have a moral obligation to obey our governors; this is another artificial duty that needs to be explained. On Hume’s view it is independent of promissory obligation. We are bound to our promises and to obey the magistrates’ commands on parallel grounds: because conformity to promises and contracts, and the other “laws of nature,” are so manifestly beneficial for all. Governors merely insure that the rules of justice are generally obeyed in the sort of society where purely voluntary conventions would otherwise break down. As in the case of fidelity to promises, the character trait of allegiance to our governors generates sympathy with its beneficiaries throughout society, making us approve the trait as a virtue. The duty of allegiance to our present governors does not depend upon their or their ancestors’ divine right to govern, Hume says, nor on any promise we have made to them, but rather on the general social value of having a government. A government that maintains conditions preferable to what they would be without it retains its legitimacy and may not rightly be overthrown; but rebellion against a cruel tyranny is no violation of our duty of allegiance. Although governments exist to serve the interests of their people, changing magistrates and forms of government for the sake of small advantages to the public would yield disorder and upheaval, defeating the purpose of government; so our duty of allegiance does forbid this. Rulers thus need not be chosen by the people in order to be legitimate. Consequently, who is the ruler will often be a matter of salience and imaginative association; and it will be no ground for legitimate rebellion that a ruler was selected arbitrarily. Rulers identified by long possession of authority, present possession, conquest, succession, or positive law will be suitably salient and so legitimate, provided their rule tends to the common good.

    Hume does advocate some forms of government as being preferable to others, particularly in his Essays. Governments structured by laws are superior to those controlled by the edicts of rulers or ruling bodies (“That Politics May Be Reduced to a Science”). Representative democracy is superior to direct democracy, and “free” (popular) governments are more hospitable to trade than “absolute” governments (ibid.). Hume speculates that a perfect government would be a representative democracy of property-holders with division of powers and some features of federalism (“Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth”). He defends his preferences by arguing that certain forms of government are less prone to corruption, faction (with the concomitant threat of civil war), and oppressive treatment of the people than others; that is, they are more likely to enforce the rules of justice, adjudicate fairly, and encourage peace and prosperity.

    Hume famously criticizes the social contract theory of political obligation. According to his own theory, our duty to obey our governors is not reducible to an instance of our duty to fulfill promises, but arises separately though in a way parallel to the genesis of that duty. The duty to obey magistrates, when widely recognized, assures the fulfillment of promises and the other artificial duties as well; so in a way, fulfillment of promissory duty depends upon fulfillment of the duty of allegiance, and not vice versa. Furthermore, Hume thinks it impossible that anyone should have made even a tacit promise to obey the government, given that citizens do not think they did any such thing, but rather think they are born to obey it. Even tacit contract requires that the will be engaged, and we have no memory of this; nor do governments refrain from punishing disloyalty in citizens who have given no tacit promise.

    13. The Natural Virtues

    In the Treatise Hume’s principle interest in the natural virtues lies in explaining the causes of our approval of them. The mechanism of sympathy ultimately accounts for this approval and the corresponding disapproval of the natural vices. Sympathy also explains our approval of the artificial virtues; the difference is that we approve of those as a result of sympathy with the cumulative effects produced by the general practice of the artificial virtues on the whole of society (individual acts of justice not always producing pleasure for anyone); whereas we approve each individual exercise of such natural virtues as modesty and friendship because we sympathize with those who are affected by each such action when we consider it from the common point of view. As we saw, he argues that the traits of which we approve fall into four groups: traits immediately agreeable to their possessor or to others, and traits advantageous to their possessor or to others. In all four of these groups of approved traits, our approval arises as the result of sympathy bringing into our minds the pleasure that the trait produces for its possessor or for others. This is especially clear with such self-regarding virtues as prudence and industry, which we approve in those who provide no benefit to us observers; this can only be explained by our sympathy with the benefits prudence and industry bring to their possessors.

    According to Hume, different levels and manifestations of the passions of pride and humility make for virtue or for vice. An obvious and “over-weaning conceit” is disapproved by any observer (is a vice) (T 3.3.2.1); while a well-founded but concealed self-esteem is approved (is a virtue). Hume explains these opposite reactions to such closely related character traits by means of the interplay of the observer’s sympathy with a distinct psychological mechanism he calls comparison. The mechanism of comparison juxtaposes a sympathetically-communicated sentiment with the observer’s own inherent feeling, causing the observer to feel a sentiment opposite to the one she observes in another (pleasure if the other is suffering, pain if the other is pleased) when the sympathetically-communicated sentiment is not too strong. A person who displays excessive pride irritates others because via sympathy they come to feel the other’s pleasant sentiment of pride (to some degree) but to feel a greater uneasiness as a result of comparison of this great pride (in whose objects they do not believe) with their own lesser amount of it; this is why conceit is a vice. Self-esteem founded on an accurate assessment of one’s strengths and politely concealed from others, though, is both agreeable and advantageous to its possessor without being distressing to others, and so is generally approved. (Thus the professed preference of Christians for humility over self-esteem does not accord with the judgments of most observers.) Although excessive pride is a natural vice and self-esteem a natural virtue, human beings in society create the artificial virtue of good breeding (adherence to customs of slightly exaggerated mutual deference in accordance with social rank) to enable us each to conceal our own pride so that it does not shock the pride of others.

    Courage and military heroism are also forms of pride. Though the student of history can see that military ambition has mostly been disadvantageous to human society, when we contemplate the “dazzling” character of the hero, immediate sympathy irresistibly leads us to approve it (T 3.3.2.15).

    Our approval of those traits that may be grouped together under the heading of goodness and benevolence, such as generosity, humanity, compassion, and gratitude, arises from sympathy with people in the individual’s “narrow circle” of friends and associates, since, given natural human selfishness, we cannot expect people’s concerns to extend farther (T 3.3.3.2). By adopting the common point of view we correct for the distortions of sympathy by entering into the feelings of those close to the person being evaluated even if they are remote from us. The vice of cruelty is most loathed because the suffering of the person’s victims that reaches us via sympathy readily becomes hatred of the perpetrator.

    Although natural abilities of the mind are not traditionally classified as moral virtues and vices, the difference between these types of traits is unimportant, Hume argues. Intelligence, good judgment, application, eloquence, and wit are also mental qualities that bring individuals the approbation of others, and their absence is disapproved. As is the case with many of the traditionally-recognized virtues, the various natural abilities are approved either because they are useful to their possessor or because they are immediately agreeable to others. It is sometimes argued that moral virtues are unlike natural abilities in that the latter are involuntary, but Hume argues that many traditional moral virtues are involuntary as well. The sole difference is that the prospect of reward or punishment can induce people to act as the morally virtuous would (as justice requires, for example), but cannot induce them to act as if they had the natural abilities.

    14. Differences between the Treatise and the Moral Enquiry

    Late in his life Hume deemed the Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals his best work, and in style it is both elegant and spare. His method in that work differs from that of the Treatise: instead of explicating the nature of virtue and vice and our knowledge of them in terms of underlying features of the human mind, he proposes to collect all the traits we know from common sense to be virtues and vices, observe what those in each group have in common, and from that observation discover the “foundation of ethics” (EPM 1.10). The conclusions largely coincide with those of the Treatise. Some topics in the Treatise are handled more fully in the moral Enquiry, for example Hume’s account of the motivation to just action is enriched by his discussion of a challenge from a “sensible knave.” However, without the detailed background theories of the mind, the passions, motivation to action, and social convention presented in the Treatise, and without any substitute for them, some of the conclusions of the moral Enquiry stand unsupported.

    In the latter work, Hume’s main argument that reason alone is not adequate to yield moral evaluations (in Appendix 1 of EPM) depends on his having demonstrated throughout the book that at least one foundation of moral praise lies in the usefulness to society of the praised character trait. We use reason extensively to learn the effects of various traits and to identify the useful and pernicious ones. But utility and disutility are merely means; were we indifferent to the weal and woe of mankind, we would feel equally indifferent to the traits that promote those ends. Therefore there must be some sentiment that makes us favor the one over the other. This could only be humanity, “a feeling for the happiness of mankind, and resentment of their misery” (EPM App. 1.3). This argument presupposes that the moral evaluations we make are themselves the expression of sentiment rather than reason alone. (The alternative position would be that while of course we do feel approval and disapproval for vice and virtue, the judgment as to which is which is itself the deliverance of reason.) So Hume appends some arguments directed against the hypothesis of moral rationalism. One of these is an enriched version of the argument of Treatise 3.1.1 that neither demonstrative nor causal reasoning has moral distinctions as its proper object, since moral vice and virtue cannot plausibly be analyzed as either facts or relations. He adds that while in our reasonings we start from the knowledge of relations or facts and infer some previously-unknown relation or fact, moral evaluation cannot proceed until all the relevant facts and relations are already known. At that point, there is nothing further for reason to do; therefore moral evaluation is not the work of reason alone but of another faculty. He bolsters this line of argument by expanding his Treatise analogy between moral and aesthetic judgment, arguing that just as our appreciation of beauty awaits full information about the object but requires the further contribution of taste, so in moral evaluation our assessment of merit or villainy awaits full knowledge of the person and situation but requires the further contribution of approbation or disapprobation. He also offers the argument that since the chain of reasons why one acts must finally stop at something that is “desirable on its own account… because of its immediate accord or agreement with sentiment…” (EPM App.1.19), sentiment is needed to account for ultimate human ends; and since virtue is an end, sentiment and not reason alone must distinguish moral good and evil.

    In the moral Enquiry Hume omits all arguments to show that reason alone does not move us to act, and he does not appeal to that thesis as a premise to establish the claim that moral properties are not discerned by reason alone. Strikingly absent from this work, consequently, is the Representation Argument about the irrelevance of reason to passions and actions, and the arguments based on it intended to show that moral goodness and evil are not identical with reasonableness and unreasonableness; as well as the other arguments for the “impotence” of reason that support the Motivation Argument. Hume instead relies solely on the above epistemic and descriptive arguments to show that reason on its own is unable to discern vice and virtue in order to reject ethical rationalism in favor of sentimentalism. He does say that reason alone is no motive to action, but does not provide arguments for this claim.

    Why did Hume omit the more fundamental arguments based on the motivational inertia of reason? He may have reconsidered and rejected them. For example, he may have given up his unmotivated claim that passions have no representative character, a premise of the Representation Argument on which some of his more fundamental anti-rationalist arguments depend. Or he may have retained these views but opted not to appeal to anything so arcane in a work aimed at a broader audience and intended to be as accessible as possible. The moral Enquiry makes no use of ideas and impressions, and so no arguments that depend on that distinction can be offered there, including the Representation Argument. Apparently Hume thought he could show that reason and sentiment rule different domains without using those arguments.

    The causal analysis of sympathy as a mechanism of vivacity-transferal is entirely omitted from the moral Enquiry. Hume still appeals to sympathy there to explain the origin of all moral approval and disapproval, but he explains our sympathy with others simply as a manifestation of the sentiment of humanity. Since on Hume’s view any sentiment-based theory of ethical evaluation is vulnerable to the same objections that concerned him in the Treatise (that sentiments vary with distance from the object of evaluation in space and time, yet moral assessments are not altered by these differences alone), he addresses them there as well, and resolves them by appealing once again to the common point of view. In the Enquiry he places more emphasis on the phenomenon of sympathy with the whole of society, in part achieved by conversation, as the means to correcting our initial sentiments.

    The distinction between artificial and natural virtues that dominates the virtue ethics of the Treatise is almost entirely absent from the moral Enquiry; the term ‘artificial’ occurs in the latter only once in a footnote. Gone are the paradoxes of property and promises intended to prove that particular virtues are devised on purpose; also missing is what some commentators think Hume’s most original contribution to the theory of justice, his account of convention. Yet Hume briefly sketches part of the same story of the quasi-historical origin of justice that he gives in the Treatise; and while the emphasis has shifted, Hume not only tries to show that justice has merit only because of its beneficial consequences, but that “public utility is the sole origin of justice” — were we not to find it useful (and in some conditions we might not) we would not even have such a thing (EPM 3.1.1). While any explanation of this shift and these omissions is merely speculative, here it seems that Hume does not change his mind about the arguments of the Treatise but chooses to lead the reader to the same conclusions by more subtle and indirect means.

    In the moral Enquiry Hume is more explicit about what he takes to be the errors of Christian (or, more cautiously, Roman Catholic) moralists. Not only have they mistakenly elevated craven humility to a virtue, but they also favor penance, fasting, and other “monkish” virtues that are in fact disapproved by all reasonable folk for their uselessness and disagreeableness, and so are vices.

    Bibliography

    Primary Sources

    * Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature, David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton (eds.), Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2000. (References to this work start with “T” and are followed by Book, Part, Section and paragraph number, in parentheses in the text.)

    * Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Tom L. Beauchamp (ed.), The Claredon Edition of the Works of David Hume Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998. (References to this work start with “EPM” and are followed by Part, Section (if any), and paragraph number, in parentheses within the text.)

    * Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd ed. revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

    * Hume, David. Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, in Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. by L. A. Selby-Bigge, 3rd ed revised by P. H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975

    * Hume, David. Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. Miller, Eugene, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1985.

    Secondary Sources

    Books

    * Árdal, Páll, Passion and Value in Hume’s Treatise, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1966; 2nd edition, revised, 1989.

    * Baier, Annette C., A Progress of Sentiments, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

    * Capaldi, N. David Hume: The Newtonian Philosopher, Boston: Twayne Publishing, 1975.

    * Capaldi, Nicholas. Hume’s Place in Moral Philosophy, New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

    * Darwall, Stephen. The British Moralists and the Internal ‘Ought’, Cambridge University Press, 1995.

    * Forbes, Duncan. Hume’s Philosophical Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1975

    * Haakonssen, Knud. The Science of a Legislator: The Natural Jurisprudence of David Hume and Adam Smith, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

    * Harrison, Jonathan. Hume’s Moral Epistemology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976

    * Harrison, Jonathan. Hume’s Theory of Justice, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1981.

    * Hutcheson, Francis. Ed. Bernard Peach. Illustrations on the Moral Sense, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.

    * Livingston, Donald W. Hume’s Philosophy of Common Life, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

    * Mackie, J.L. Hume’s Moral Theory, London: Routledge.

    * Miller, David, Philosophy and Ideology in Hume’s Political Thought, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

    * Norton, David Fate. David Hume: Common-Sense Moralist, Sceptical Metaphysician, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

    * Schneewind, J. B. The Invention of Autonomy, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998

    * Smith, Norman Kemp. The Philosophy of David Hume, London: Macmillian, 1941

    * Snare. Francis. Morals, Motivation and Convention, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991

    * Stewart, John B. Opinion and Reform in Hume’s Political Philosophy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.

    * Stroud, Barry. Hume, London: Routledge, 1977

    * Garrett, Don. Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    * Whelan, Frederick. Order and Artifice in Hume’s Political Philosophy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

    Anthologies

    * Chappell, V.C. Hume: A Collection of Critical Essays, Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1996

    * Cohon, Rachel. Hume: Moral and Political Philosophy, Aldershot, England and Burlington, Vermont: Dartmouth/Ashgate, 2001.

    * Morice, G. P. David Hume: Bicentenary Papers, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1977

    * Norton, David Fate. The Cambridge Companion to Hume, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993

    * Raphael, D.D. British Moralsits 1650 — 1800, Vol. I, Hackett, 1991.

    Articles

    * Árdal, Páall, “Another Look at Hume’s Account of Moral Evaluation,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 15, Oct. 1977, pp. 405-421.

    * Árdal, Páll, “Convention and Value,” in David Hume: Bicentenary Papers, ed. G.P. Morice, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1977, pp. 51-68.

    * Baier, Annette. “Hume’s Account of Social Artifice — Its Origins and Originality,” Ethics 98, July 1988, pp.757-778.

    * Baron, Marcia. “Hume’s Noble Lie: An Account of His Artificial Virtues,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 12, 1982, pp. 539-55.

    * Blackburn, Simon, “Hume on the Mezzanine Level,” Hume Studies 19:2, 1993, pp. 273-288.

    * Brown, Charlotte. “Is Hume an Internalist?” Journal of the History of Philosophy 26, 1988, pp. 69-87.

    * Cohon, Rachel. “The Common Point of View in Hume’s Ethics,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57:4, Dec. 1997, pp. 827-850.

    * Cohon, Rachel. “Hume’s Difficulty with the Virtue of Honesty,” Hume Studies 23:1, 1997, pp. 91-112.

    * Cohon, Rachel. “The Shackles of Virtue: Hume on Allegiance to Government,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 18:4, October 2001, pp. 393-413.

    * Dees, Richard H. “Hume on the Characters of Virtue,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 35:1, 1997, pp. 45-65.

    * Falk, W.D. “Hume on Is and Ought,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 6, 1976, pp. 359-378.

    * Flew, Antony. “On the Interpretation of Hume,”Philosophy 38, 1963, pp. 178-181.

    * Foot, Philippa. “Hume on Moral Judgment,” in Pears, David (ed.), David Hume: A Symposium, London: St. Martin’s Press, 1963, pp. 74-80.

    * Forbes, Duncan. ”Hume’s Science of Politics” in David Hume: Bicentenary Papers, ed. G.P. Morice, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1977, pp. 39-50.

    * Gauthier, David. “Artificial Virtues and the Sensible Knave,” Hume Studies 18:2, 1992, pp. 401-427.

    * Gauthier, David. “David Hume, Contractarian,” The Philosophical Review 88, 1979, pp. 3-38.

    * Hampton, Jean. “Does Hume Have an Instrumental Conception of Practical Reason?”, Hume Studies 21:1, 1995, pp. 57-74.

    * Hudson , W.D. “Hume on Is and Ought,” The Philosophical Quaterly 14, 1964, pp. 246-252.

    * Hunter Geoffrey. “Reply to Professor Flew,” Philosophy 38, 1963, pp. 182-184.

    * Hunter, Geoffrey. “Hume on Is and Ought,” Philosophy 37, 1962, pp. 148-152.

    * Jensen, Henning. “Hume on Moral Agreement,” Mind 86, 1977, pp. 497-513.

    * Loeb, Louis. “Hume’s Moral Sentiments and the Structure of the Treatise,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 15, 1977, pp. 395-403.

    * MacIntyre, A.C. “Hume on ‘Is’ and ‘Ought,” Philosophical Review 68, 1959,pp. 451-468.

    * Magri, Tito. “Natural Obligation and Normative Motivation in Hume’s Treatise,” Hume Studies 22:2, 1996, pp. 231-253.

    * McIntyre, Jane. “Character: A Humean Account,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 7, 1990, pp. 193-206.

    * Millgram, Elijah. “Was Hume a Humean?,” Hume Studies 21:1, 1995, pp. 75-93.

    * Norton, David Fate. “Hume’s Moral Ontology,” Hume Studies (special volume) 1985, pp. 189-214.

    * Norton, David Fate. “Hume, Human Nature, and the Foundations of Morality,” in The Cambridge Companion to Hume, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 148-182.

    * Persson, Ingmar. “Hume — Not a ‘Humean’ about Motivation,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 14:2, 1997, pp. 189-206.

    * Radcliffe, Elizabeth S. “How Does the Humean Sense of Duty Motivate?,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 34:3, 1996, 383-407.

    * Radcliffe, Elizabeth S. “Kantian Tunes on a Humean Instrument: Why Hume is not Really a Skeptic about Practical Reasoning,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 27:2, 1997, pp. 247-270.

    * Stroud, Barry. “Gliding or ‘Staining’ The World with ‘Sentiments’ and ‘Phantasms,’” Hume Studies 19:2, 1993, pp. 253-272.

    * Sturgeon, Nicholas. “Moral Skepticism and Moral Naturalism in Hume’s Treatise,” Hume Studies 21:1, April 2001, pp.3-83.

    * Swain, Corliss. “Passionate Objectivity,” Noûs 26:4, 1992, pp. 465-490.

    * Taylor, Jacqueline. “Justice and the Foundations of Social Morality in Hume’s Treatise,” Hume Studies 24:1, 1998, pp. 5-30.

    * Wiggins, David. “A Sensible Subjectivism?” in Needs, Values, Truth, 3rd ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, pp. 185-210.

    Other articles you might like;

    Postingan Lainnya;


Terimakasih sudah membaca postingan yang berjudul
Semoga isi dari postingan blog ini bisa bermanfaat, sekali lagi admin jebidal.com ucapkan terima kasih atas kunjungan Anda. Jangan sungkan dan jangan ragu untuk membagikan isi dari blog ini. Silahkan Share Postingan yang membahas tentang Ethical Anti-rationalism

cari di kotak pencarian ini