David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 30th, 2020, 10:07 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 29th, 2020, 9:17 pm

So, it is a good thing to let everyone do their own thing, because it is a good thing to be able to do our own thing. Can you drill down on that, I mean, do you have any thoughts on why being able to do our own thing is morally good?
Anything that anyone thinks is morally good boils down to that person having a preference for that behavior. It can't boil down to anything else, because there's no way to derive moral stances from anything else. This is what the world is factually like. I have a preference for people not controlling other people, for letting people do whatever they'd like to do consensually, etc. Other people have other preferences.
But you cannot say why you prefer one thing over another.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Gertie »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:53 pm
Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:10 pm I think you and I and Hume are mostly on the same page. Hume is right of course that we have both pro social (caring for others) as well as self-care evolved pre-dispositions. And that it is these caring/social sentiments which we have come to conceptualise as moral.

The problem remains imo to derive Oughts/moral duties from that 'Is' state of affairs. I'm suggesting the notion of Mattering can do that job (it matters how we treat other sentient beings because they, like us, have a quality of life, have interests). Mattering elevates subjective sentiments to their appropriate place re morality and oughts.

The common argument you'll find on boards like this is that morality isn't Objective, so it's ONLY a way we feel about things.

My reply to that is that the motivation for all of our endeavors are feelings, so the foundation of ethics being feelings does not put it in a category different from anything else that people try to do. Also, morality pertains to shared feelings, not simply an individual's feelings.

Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:10 pm
Thus there can be no common standard, no right or wrong except how an individual feels about something,

They often do say that, but they are wrong about that for the reason stated in your next sentence:

Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:10 pm And we now understand why people's feelings tend to align in certain areas as a happenstance of our particular species' social evolutionary history.

The feelings of empathy or humanity or benevolence or whatever one wants to call such feelings, are common to most people, so that things based on those common feelings are not merely personal preferences; they are common preferences, preferences held in common with others. (Some philosophers like to use the term "intersubjective" in relation to this type of idea.) That is why there is so much agreement on the subject of which things are right and which things are wrong, though people tend to focus on differences and lose sight of the commonalities. So it is not simply what an individual feels about something.

Someone looking for "objective" ethics will not be happy with that, but it is what we have. Hume did not set out to write what he wished to be true; he set out to try to state what was true. (I have no idea what he wished to be true, and it does not matter since that is not what he wrote about.)

Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:10 pm With God out of the picture, this is the problem for modern philiosophy I think, realising that our preferences about right and wrong are simply survival tools which can be seen in terms of how genes work. If we are trying to argue why pro social behaviours sometimes carry this extra moral burden of Ought, where is the independant measure or authority to justify such arguments which we can point to?

If we instead ask a different question, do Oughts matter regardless of whether they are subjective or objective, we re-frame the issue. If mattering is our foundational touchstone, we can say whether or not I care about your welfare, your welfare still matters. And the reason it matters is the same as why my welfare matters to me - we are both experiencing Subjects with a quality of life. For conscious beings, life is experiential and qualiative, which means we can meaningfully experience flourishing or harm. That's what makes our behaviour towards each other matter, and is the appropriate foundation for Oughts. Goldstein -


''Since the conditions that give rise to our irrepressible sense of categorically mattering, as well as to our agonizing over it, are universally shared, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that, when it comes to categorical mattering, we are all in the same boat.

This leaves us with two possibilities. Either none of us categorically matters—our sense that we do is a kind of trompe l’oeil thrown up by the existential pressure of our identity-mattering—or we all categorically matter and to the exact same extent.

Which of these two possibilities is true hardly matters, ethically speaking, since the consequence of both is the same: to the extent that we feel our own categorical mattering—which we do, which we must, since it provides the very infrastructure for the emotions that evolution has bequeathed us—we have to extend that same categorical mattering to all who share the mattering instinct, which is, of course, all of us.11

Though so many human goods are inequitably apportioned among us—riches and status, beauty and health, talent and love—when it comes to the distribution of categorical mattering, there is absolute and inviolable equality.

And if anything at all ought to matter to us, then surely it is that.''



https://secularhumanism.org/2017/01/con ... g-matters/

I think what some subjectivists would say is that they do not care about that; they just care about what matters to themselves, and do not care about others. Which effectively would be saying that they do not have feelings of empathy.

Or to put this another way, I don't think anyone who lacks empathy is likely to be persuaded by that.
Yep I agree with all this. Your challenge to how I frame it lies in the last bold part I think? If you think anything else needs an answer let me know. As for this -
I think what some subjectivists would say is that they do not care about that; they just care about what matters to themselves, and do not care about others. Which effectively would be saying that they do not have feelings of empathy.

Or to put this another way, I don't think anyone who lacks empathy is likely to be persuaded by that.
I think we're stuck with that, it's the nature of the Subject beast.


But philosophy doesn't have to be limited by the idiosyncrasies of a-typical brain functions.

And even those who don't experience caring for others in the ways most do, might still understand the reasoning above, and behave accordingly. If there truly are as many psychopaths amongst us as estimated, they largely do. And if they don't, like with the rest of us, there are strictures which can be applied.

In our everyday one on one dealings, we can make our own decisions on how to deal with such people, but moral societies should rightly expect them to adapt to rules based on the welfare of their fellow citizens (and other sentient species as appropriate) or face consequences. Because anti-social/harmful behaviour matters, regardless of the person's own feelings about their behaviour.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 30th, 2020, 10:46 am
Terrapin Station wrote: October 30th, 2020, 10:07 am

Anything that anyone thinks is morally good boils down to that person having a preference for that behavior. It can't boil down to anything else, because there's no way to derive moral stances from anything else. This is what the world is factually like. I have a preference for people not controlling other people, for letting people do whatever they'd like to do consensually, etc. Other people have other preferences.
But you cannot say why you prefer one thing over another.
Why is identical to a physical state of one's brain.
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Interesting thread.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Kaz_1983 wrote: November 7th, 2020, 2:08 pm Interesting thread.
I am glad you found it interesting.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 7th, 2020, 6:34 pm
Kaz_1983 wrote: November 7th, 2020, 2:08 pm Interesting thread.
I am glad you found it interesting.
I'll add something to this thread now. :mrgreen:

It's very interesting and important to differentiate David Hume's theory of ideas and impressions. From experience, it's very clear that he believed that we're born as a blank state and that we gain knowledge of the world through experience, it's only through experience that the human mind can create these "idea's". From his point of view, it's quite clear that we're not born with any innate knowledge.

Hume was greatly influenced by John Locke's thoughts and idea's, he proposed the tabula rasa theory;
"We are born our mind is a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences"
For example, a baby learns through experience; they learn how best to satisfy their wants and desires - take a six month old baby that is crying nonstop for their mother, through experience this baby will learn that if they cry long enough that they'll get their mothers attention which will in turn result in her deciding that it's important that she gets the bottle of milk that the baby desired in the first place. David Hume would say that this baby has now got the "idea" in their head that next time they want milk that the best course of action is to cry to get their mothers attention. According to Hume who believes that we derive "ideas" solely from the "impressions", which are direct and vivid immediate sensory experience and reflection, these include the passions or as we know them emotions and desires. This means that all simple “ideas” are copies of impressions, which can be gained themselves only through experience. All our knowledge of the world is based on sense "impressions".

This leaves Hume claiming that moral distinctions are solely impressions, not “ideas”. In this case, moral "impressions" in themselves can only be the result of experience, they cannot be the consequences of pure reason because experience itself is based on non-cognitive attitudes that we've no control over. Take the proposition "is the car red or blue?" and compare that to "does the lemon tastes good or not". Emotions and desires possess no truth value.
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Kaz_1983 »

"is the car red or blue?"
When it comes to the proposition "is the car red or blue?" - the distinction between the two is very clear and simple. It is objectively the case that there is just one car and that it is either the colour red or the colour blue. We cannot desire the car to be red or desire it to be blue, It is very clear that is a proposition that holds truth value. But the irony of it is that the "idea" of the colour red for example would be the product of experience; well if you hold that sensory experience creates “ideas”, that is.
"does the lemon tastes good or not"
This is a little bit more unclear and the water is a lot more murky, see the reason why I say this is because the question "does the lemon taste good or not?" is one of desire. It might be the case that we desire to consume fruit that is sour, to this person the lemon would taste good but to another person they might not like the taste of sour fruit. Maybe somebody really hates lemons and prefers oranges. Taste is a non-cognitive attitude... taste is something to be desired. See something derived from sensory experience cannot involve reason. This where Hume claims that vice and virtue may be compared to sounds, colours, heat, and cold, which are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Belindi »

Empathy is a no-brainer: empathy is a sort of knowledge. The foundation of ethics is reason and there is no reason without empathy.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Belindi wrote: November 9th, 2020, 5:27 am Empathy is a no-brainer: empathy is a sort of knowledge.

I disagree. I had in mind something like this:

empathy

noun
the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/empathy?s=t


One does not actually have the feelings of another, or necessarily know what they are feeling or thinking. So empathy is not knowledge. However, the word "empathy" was selected by me; perhaps it was a poor choice. It is feelings pertaining to others. Hume called it "the sentiment of humanity".


Belindi wrote: November 9th, 2020, 5:27 am
The foundation of ethics is reason


I very much disagree with that for reasons already stated. Emotions are the motivation for action, not reason. Ethics pertains to what people do. Reasoning, by itself, never motivates anything. If one discovers some fact, but does not care about that fact, then it will not motivate one to act.

Here are a couple of replies to other people that are relevant to this:

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 24th, 2020, 2:06 pm
Syamsu wrote: October 24th, 2020, 7:33 am People talking about "empathy", are trying to make what is emotional, into something rational.

...
Hume isn't. Hume regards morality as essentially a matter of emotion, not a matter of reason (though one can reason about emotions, and certainly about means to achieve ends). This is a break with ancient traditions about ethics, where people, like Socrates, said things like, to know the good is to do the good. The ancient idea was that morality or ethics was a matter of reason. Hume said, if you know something, but do not care about it (i.e., have some feeling about it), that knowledge will make no difference in the person's conduct.

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 24th, 2020, 2:16 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: October 24th, 2020, 9:46 am...

Yes we can attach feelings to new things, but the underlying feelings are innate. And THAT is the point here.
...
Yes. Without those innate feelings, there would be no ethics. Ethics pertains to how one deals with other people, which is why it is feelings that pertain to other people that matters. Those relevant feelings we call "empathy".

Some more posts that are relevant:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16933&start=60#p370515

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16933&start=60#p370518


Belindi wrote: November 9th, 2020, 5:27 am
and there is no reason without empathy.

I have no idea why you would state that. Most reasoning has nothing whatever to do with empathy. For example, when one reasons about a math problem, empathy is irrelevant to the reasoning involved. The reasoning for figuring out the sum of 8,257 and 17,239 does not involve empathy. The same is true of most other things about which people reason.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Belindi »

Jack D Ripper wrote:
Belindi wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:27 am

and there is no reason without empathy.

I have no idea why you would state that. Most reasoning has nothing whatever to do with empathy. For example, when one reasons about a math problem, empathy is irrelevant to the reasoning involved. The reasoning for figuring out the sum of 8,257 and 17,239 does not involve empathy. The same is true of most other things about which people reason.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
I meant inductive reason not deductive reason.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Belindi wrote: November 10th, 2020, 12:50 pm Jack D Ripper wrote:
Belindi wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:27 am

and there is no reason without empathy.

I have no idea why you would state that. Most reasoning has nothing whatever to do with empathy. For example, when one reasons about a math problem, empathy is irrelevant to the reasoning involved. The reasoning for figuring out the sum of 8,257 and 17,239 does not involve empathy. The same is true of most other things about which people reason.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
I meant inductive reason not deductive reason.

I don't see how that changes anything. Here is a typical kind of inductive argument:
Example 1. Every raven in a random sample of 3200 ravens is black. This strongly supports the following conclusion: All ravens are black.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

This also has nothing to do with empathy.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Belindi »

Jack D Ripper, empathy is knowledge about other people, knowledge which is obtained inductively. One can be wrong about somebody else, same as one can be wrong about black swans.
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Okay. This is interesting and something I've thought about recently, was David Hume a non-cognitivist or did he believe in some form of subjectivism?
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Kaz_1983 wrote: November 13th, 2020, 12:21 am Okay. This is interesting and something I've thought about recently, was David Hume a non-cognitivist or did he believe in some form of subjectivism?


There is some controversy over this, as you can see if you read the article here:


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/


There are also articles one can find online which argue for different positions on this question.


In case it is needed, here is an article about the distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/


However, I would say that he is a cognitivist. Consider this passage:

David Hume wrote:The hypothesis which we embrace is plain. It maintains that morality is determined by sentiment. It defines virtue to be whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary. We then proceed to examine a plain matter of fact, to wit, what actions have this influence. We consider all the circumstances in which these actions agree, and thence endeavour to extract some general observations with regard to these sentiments.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_628


That seems to me to be saying that moral statements can be true or false, depending on whether they accurately fit those sentiments which are the source of morality.


Consider also this:

David Hume wrote:Those who have denied the reality of moral distinctions, may be ranked among the disingenuous disputants; nor is it conceivable, that any human creature could ever seriously believe, that all characters and actions were alike entitled to [170] the affection and regard of everyone.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_361


So, he is saying that moral distinctions are real. Elsewhere he says that they are based upon sentiments, but that does not make them unreal, as sentiments are real qualities of people.


Non-cognitivism also does not fit with the moral judgements he makes. For example:
David Hume wrote:It may be esteemed, perhaps, a superfluous task to prove, that the benevolent or softer affections are estimable; and wherever they appear, engage the approbation and good-will of mankind. The epithets sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficient, or their equivalents, are known in all languages, and universally express the highest merit, which human nature is capable of attaining.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_371


To pare down the first sentence, The benevolent or softer affections are estimable. That is affirming a moral judgement about benevolence.

So, I don't think he is taking a non-cognitivist approach to ethics.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Cheers.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021