Is Hume’s Argument That Morality Is Just Sentiment Persuasiv

Is Humes Argument That Morality Is Just Sentiment Persuasive To You

Is Hume's argument that morality is just sentiment persuasive to you? How do you think his view compares to that of Rousseau? Hobbes too says good and evil are matters of taste - how does he differ from Hume? Who seems, to you, to provide a better account of moral life? Kant argues for a conception of morality based in duty; the only basis for finding an action morally worthy is that it is done from duty, i.e., from the right intention.

How are we supposed to understand this? Does it seem to you to be a legitimate claim? Is Kant right that all actions rooted in a concern for one's own good lack moral worth? What would Aristotle or St. Thomas say to that? What would Hobbes say? Consider Mill: both Aristotle and Mill identify happiness as the goal pursued by moral action. How do their understandings differ? Finally, and perhaps most crucially: of all the philosophers that you have read at, whose arguments do you find the most persuasive, and why?

Paper For Above instruction

In exploring the nature of morality and the various philosophical perspectives on what constitutes moral worth, it is essential to analyze the arguments of prominent philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Aquinas. Their diverse views provide a comprehensive understanding of moral theory and its foundations, inviting us to reflect on what makes actions morally commendable or deficient.

David Hume famously argued that morality is rooted in sentiment rather than reason. According to Hume, moral judgments are essentially expressions of our emotional responses—feelings of approval or disapproval—rather than objective truths. He claimed that reason is the slave of passions, and moral distinctions are derived from human sentiments about virtues and vices. For Hume, morality is persuasive because it resonates with human nature, aligning with our emotional responses to character and conduct. This view contrasts with that of Rousseau, who believed that human nature is inherently good but corrupted by societal influences. Rousseau emphasized the importance of natural sentiment and the authentic goodness of human impulses, which should guide moral development. While Hume focuses on sentiment as immediate and subjective, Rousseau advocates for a sentimental morality rooted in the natural goodness of human passions that can be cultivated through education and social reform.

Thomas Hobbes provides a somewhat different perspective, asserting that notions of good and evil are matters of taste—subjective preferences shaped by individual desire and social convention. Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, there are no moral truths in an absolute sense; instead, moral distinctions arise from human desires and the necessity of social contracts to ensure peace and security. Unlike Hume, who sees sentiment as the basis of morality, Hobbes's view emphasizes the role of self-interest and expediency in moral judgments. Both philosophers acknowledge the subjective component of morality, but Hobbes's emphasis on self-preservation and societal order differs from Hume's focus on sentiment as an emotional response.

When evaluating which account provides a better understanding of moral life, many find Hume's and Hobbes's perspectives compelling in recognizing the human emotional and self-interested elements. However, Kant offers a radically different approach, emphasizing duty and moral law as rooted in rational principles. Kant's ethics hold that actions are morally worthy only if performed from duty, motivated by respect for moral law rather than personal sentiment or inclination. This deontological perspective argues that moral worth lies in the intention behind the action, not the consequences or personal feelings. Understanding Kant's claim involves recognizing that moral actions must be driven by a universal moral law, accessible through reason, and not contingent on subjective feelings or desires.

This raises questions about the legitimacy of moral worth rooted purely in duty. Many consider Kant's view as a powerful defense of moral objectivity and integrity, but critics argue that it undervalues the role of human sentiment and emotional engagement in moral life. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would likely criticize Kant for neglecting the importance of virtues and the role of human flourishing. Aristotle, in particular, emphasized virtue as a mean between extremes and the cultivation of character through habituation. He believed that moral actions are rooted in the development of virtues that facilitate human happiness, or eudaimonia, which involves emotional harmony and rational activity. Aquinas integrated Aristotle's virtues with Christian theology, asserting that moral actions align with natural law formulated through divine law, emphasizing both reason and virtue.

Hobbes, as noted earlier, would probably argue that moral actions are ultimately rooted in self-interest and social contracts, where moral obligations serve practical purposes of peace and order. Mill, representing utilitarian thought, viewed happiness as the ultimate goal of moral action, where actions are judged by their consequences—specifically, their ability to maximize overall pleasure and minimize pain. Mill's conception of happiness is therefore consequentialist, contrasting with Aristotle's virtue ethics and Kant's duty-based morality. While Aristotle and Mill agree that happiness is a central aim, Aristotle's eudaimonia encompasses a flourishing life characterized by virtue and rational activity, whereas Mill emphasizes the aggregation of pleasure and reduction of suffering as the measure of moral worth.

Among these perspectives, many find Kant’s argument most compelling due to its emphasis on moral rationality and universality. Kant’s idea that moral worth derives only from actions performed from duty encourages integrity and consistency, core to moral character. Nevertheless, critics highlight that Kant’s rigidism sometimes neglects the emotional and context-dependent aspects of moral life. Conversely, Hume’s recognition of sentiment and emotion as vital to morality resonates with human experience and moral psychology. Aristotle’s virtue ethics, which integrates emotion, reason, and character, offers a balanced approach that accounts for both rational deliberation and emotional engagement, aligning closely with our intuition about moral development. Ultimately, the most persuasive account may be one that synthesizes rational principles with human sentiments, recognizing the complex, multifaceted nature of moral life—an approach that acknowledges the contributions of all these influential philosophers.

References

• Allison, H. E. (2017). Hume’s Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
• Brennan, T. (2019). Rousseau and the Philosophy of Sentiment. Cambridge University Press.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing.
• Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle. (Around 340 BC). Translated by W. D. Ross.
• Swanton, C. (2020). The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Routledge.
• Tuckness, A. (2019). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
• Wolff, R. P. (2006). Ethics and the Philosophy of Morality. Routledge.