David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

[Marvin_Edwards]

In order to implement a rule there must be an agreement. In order to reach an agreement there must be a shared understanding of the objective. The only criteria of moral judgment that can be universally agreed to is "the best good and least harm for everyone".

People could hypothetically choose to all agree on any slogan like that.

The fact is that they don't actually all agree on that.

And yet, when faced with a new moral issue to be resolved, that is what they will use. They won't use the slogan. But they will perform the function.

[Marvin_Edwards]

In the same fashion, the child psychologist and the pediatrician can tell you what is objectively good and bad for your child.

Rubbish.
Do you mean stuff like sissy aversion therapy?
Or the now much refuted Paiget method?
Maybe you are refering to the poilicy of segregation and racial profiling?
How about a bit of Freudian analysis?
Maybe you are referring to a damn good thrashing to knock some bloody sense into them?
Do please tell!

The child will resist a painful vaccination, even though it is good for him. The child's subjective experience is not a reliable guide to what is good or bad for him.

Yes, the main thing is to NEVER listen to the child you are quite correct. Good old Victorian values - a child should not be seen or heard.

So, what's the name of the fallacy you're employing? It is obvious you are using bad reasoning, because you're listing many bad examples in order to claim there are no good examples where child psychologists and pediatricians have provided good advice based upon objective information and sound science.

[Sculptor1]

Rubbish.
Do you mean stuff like sissy aversion therapy?
Or the now much refuted Paiget method?
Maybe you are refering to the poilicy of segregation and racial profiling?
How about a bit of Freudian analysis?
Maybe you are referring to a damn good thrashing to knock some bloody sense into them?
Do please tell!

Yes, the main thing is to NEVER listen to the child you are quite correct. Good old Victorian values - a child should not be seen or heard.

So, what's the name of the fallacy you're employing? It is obvious you are using bad reasoning, because you're listing many bad examples in order to claim there are no good examples where child psychologists and pediatricians have provided good advice based upon objective information and sound science.

Look to yourself for bad reasoning.
Characters like you have to peddling the objectivity myth since the dawn of time. They are oppressors of others. Hitler's scientists proved objectively that Jews were dangerous to the German state and unless they were stopped would "swarm" like rats and take over the land.

All the examples I have given were taken as "what children need" objectively, scientifically.

The danger of people like you is your absurd naiveiete.

[Terrapin Station]

People could hypothetically choose to all agree on any slogan like that.

The fact is that they don't actually all agree on that.

And yet, when faced with a new moral issue to be resolved, that is what they will use. They won't use the slogan. But they will perform the function.

It's not what I use, for example. For one, because there's no way to determine the "best good" and "least harm" for everyone, because different people consider different things to be good or bad (harmful).

[Jack D Ripper]

... He would say “it is because you care. That caring may have a biological root but it is that caring that motivates your behaviour. Absent that, if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t bother. ...

Yes. Emotions are what motivate actions. That is true in all cases. In the case of ethical actions, they is a subset of the totality of actions, and so ethical actions are motivated by a subset of one's emotions.

Ethical actions are not motivated by self-interest. Why? Because my self-interest is different from your self-interest. My self-interest motivates me to get things for me, not you, and your self-interest motivates you to get things for you, not me. Moral judgements have a kind of universality to them, and are not particular to an individual. What is pretty much the same between you and me (assuming that you and me are both ordinary, and not, for example, sociopaths) is our empathy, our feeling of humanity for others. It is that shared feeling for others that gives us a shared judgement about actions, and this shared perspective is what ethics is about. In the words of Hume:

When a man denominates another his enemy, his rival, his antagonist, his adversary,he is understood to speak the language of self-love, and to express sentiments, peculiar to himself, and arising from his particular circumstances and situation. But when he bestows on any man the epithets of vicious or odious or depraved, he then speaks another language, and expresses sentiments, in which he expects all his audience are to concur with him. He must here, therefore, depart from his private and particular situation, and must choose a point of view, common to him with others; he must move some universal principle of the human frame, and touch a string to which all mankind have an accord and symphony. If he mean, therefore, to express that this man possesses qualities, whose tendency is pernicious to society, he has chosen this common point of view, and has touched the principle of humanity, in which every man, in some degree, concurs. While the human heart is compounded of the same elements as at present, it will never be wholly indifferent to public good, [273]nor entirely unaffected with the tendency of characters and manners. And though this affection of humanity may not generally be esteemed so strong as vanity or ambition, yet, being common to all men, it can alone be the foundation of morals, or of any general system of blame or praise. One man’s ambition is not another’s ambition, nor will the same event or object satisfy both; but the humanity of one man is the humanity of every one, and the same object touches this passion in all human creatures.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_563


And:

Avarice, ambition, vanity, and all passions vulgarly, though improperly, comprised under the denomination of self-love, are here excluded from our theory concerning the origin of morals, not because they are too weak, but because they have not a proper direction for that purpose. [272] The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation, and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it. It also implies some sentiment, so universal and comprehensive as to extend to all mankind, and render the actions and conduct, even of the persons the most remote, an object of applause or censure, according as they agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established. These two requisite circumstances belong alone to the sentiment of humanity here insisted on. The other passions produce in every breast, many strong sentiments of desire and aversion, affection and hatred; but these neither are felt so much in common, nor are so comprehensive, as to be the foundation of any general system and established theory of blame or approbation.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_598

[Jack D Ripper]

Part of what is going on is an attempt to explain what people actually do, what is going on when people make ethical judgements.

Which requires that "this stuff that people are doing" is something one calls "ethical judgments." Not everyone is going to bestow the moniker "ethical judgments" on the same stuff that people are doing. Hence my comment.

Certainly, someone may call something an ethical judgement that others do not. But this should not be a surprise to anyone, given the fact that people disagree on all kinds of things. Sometimes this will be due to differences in claims regarding matters of fact. For example, if one claims that Jews or blacks are not real people, one may not extend one's empathy to them in the same way as someone who claims that they are real people. In Hume's case, he used the example of the "monkish virtues" to discuss this sort of situation, where some people have different ideas about what is ethical.

And certainly, if someone is devoted to a particular ethical theory, and if they consistently follow it and speak in accordance with it, then they will say that what fits that theory is what ethics is about. If that person is mistaken about what ethics is about, then they will be giving the wrong answer in many cases. This will apply no matter what the truth of the matter is regarding ethical judgements, and consequently one must expect that some people will speak in a way that will diverge from whatever theory one is proposing.

What tends to happen then is that one says "Well, that stuff that people are doing, that I'm nominally calling 'ethical judgments,' has characteristics a, b and c per my perception/analysis," and that then helps formulate that person's concept, and then once formulated/established, the concept becomes the regulator, so that if stuff that people do doesn't have characteristics a, b and c, that person isn't going to call it an ethical judgment even if you do call it that.

Again, per my concept, ethical judgments only require that they're feelings/dispositions about the acceptability of interpersonal behavior that the person considers more significant than etiquette.

This is where you seem to be taking a different stance than Hume. You seem to be saying that it is a matter of the intensity of the feelings ("more significant"), rather than the type of feelings. So that, if someone really, really loved listening to the Korean boy band BTS, that person would regard listening to them as being of ethical significance. Is that what you mean to suggest?

Since I have just posted a reply to someone else that expresses Hume's ideas on why it is empathy, a feeling of humanity, that he regards as the basis of ethics, I will just post a link:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16933&start=60#p370514

That doesn't require or exclude any particular relationship of those feelings or dispositions to empathy, reason, or anything else.

I'm not saying that people call any arbitrary thing an ethical judgment. But not everyone calls all of the same things ethical judgments (or anything that were naming anything), for reasons I just explained.

If it is a matter of intensity or importance to a particular individual, how can it not be about just anything? About whatever is important to an individual?

[Jack D Ripper]

Jack

Nice opening post and great quotes. Hume is so perceptive, smart, clear thinking and down to earth.

Thank you. I agree with your assessment of Hume in that sentence.

... Hume is essentially preferencing social rewards over self-interest rewards, arguing for them as ultimately more fulfilling, but both are aspects of our evolved reward system/self-gratification. But it's still a preference I think, which not everyone would have to agree with.

No, it isn't that there is necessarily a preference for the one sort of feeling; Hume clearly indicates that, for many people, the feelings of self-interest may be stronger (in this quote, he uses the word "benevolence" for what I have called "empathy"; bold emphasis is added; congratulations, by the way, for getting me to add in a new quote, not in the opening post):

It seems a happiness in the present theory, that it enters not into that vulgar dispute concerning the degrees of benevolence or self-love, which prevail in human nature; [271] a dispute which is never likely to have any issue, both because men, who have taken part, are not easily convinced, and because the phenomena, which can be produced on either side, are so dispersed, so uncertain, and subject to so many interpretations, that it is scarcely possible accurately to compare them, or draw from them any determinate inference or conclusion. It is sufficient for our present purpose, if it be allowed, what surely, without the greatest absurdity cannot be disputed, that there is some benevolence, however small, infused into our bosom; some spark of friendship for human kind; some particle of the dove kneaded into our frame, along with the elements of the wolf and serpent. Let these generous sentiments be supposed ever so weak; let them be insufficient to move even a hand or finger of our body, they must still direct the determinations of our mind, and where everything else is equal, produce a cool preference of what is useful and serviceable to mankind, above what is pernicious and dangerous. A moral distinction, therefore, immediately arises; a general sentiment of blame and approbation; a tendency, however faint, to the objects of the one, and a proportionable aversion to those of the other. Nor will those reasoners, who so earnestly maintain the predominant selfishness of human kind, be any wise scandalized at hearing of the weak sentiments of virtue implanted in our nature. On the contrary, they are found as ready to maintain the one tenet as the other; and their spirit of satire (for such it appears, rather than of corruption) naturally gives rise to both opinions; which have, indeed, a great and almost an indissoluble connexion together.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_597


The reason why it is empathy or benevolence or a feeling of humanity that is the source of morals is because of the universality of those feelings, and of them being of the right subject matter, pertaining to judgements of others, regardless of one's connection to them or lack thereof. Or, what is the next paragraph in Hume (that I did include in the opening post):

Avarice, ambition, vanity, and all passions vulgarly, though improperly, comprised under the denomination of self-love, are here excluded from our theory concerning the origin of morals, not because they are too weak, but because they have not a proper direction for that purpose. [272] The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation, and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it. It also implies some sentiment, so universal and comprehensive as to extend to all mankind, and render the actions and conduct, even of the persons the most remote, an object of applause or censure, according as they agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established. These two requisite circumstances belong alone to the sentiment of humanity here insisted on. The other passions produce in every breast, many strong sentiments of desire and aversion, affection and hatred; but these neither are felt so much in common, nor are so comprehensive, as to be the foundation of any general system and established theory of blame or approbation.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_598


Although occasionally one will encounter someone saying, of a personal preference, that it is a matter of morals or ethics, it is typically a joke, as, for example, It would be morally wrong to not order the chocolate cake from the menu at this restaurant, because it is so good.

Joking aside, that is not the sort of thing that people typically regard as a matter of ethics or morals.


As for being in the right direction, we make moral judgements about people who have no impact on us. For example, we make moral judgements about dead people, about fictional characters, and about people on the other side of the world with whom we never interact. Consequently, those judgements cannot be based on self-interest, because they do not affect us personally. In the novel Pride and Prejudice, when Jane and Elizabeth are discussing the relative merits of Mr. Wickham and Mr. Darcy, it does not impact us who is and who is not at fault. You do not gain or lose anything, no matter which one is at fault. When the truth of their characters is later revealed, one's judgement of them cannot be based on self-interest, because they do not touch one's self-interest. I suppose I could have kept with an example that Hume used in a quote that I have in the opening post, of Oedipus, a character in a play by Sophocles, but it does not really matter which fictional character we discuss for this purpose. The source of the judgement must be some other sentiment than self-love.

Some philosophers are trying new approaches which see the ''objective v subjective'' approach as inappropriate. Goldstein has come up with the notion of ''Mattering'' as the key basis for morality. Very broadly, it Matters if I harm or help you. Harris points to the reason it matters, when he talks about The Wellbeing of Conscious Creatures. Because conscious Subjects have qualiative conscious states. A Quality of Life which Matters to them - to each of us. We can all get this, and when we give it a moment's thought we realise that's why it's justified to call some actions Right or Wrong, why there should be Oughts. It's just that philosophy doesn't usually use the language of ''mattering''. We need a conceptual shift to realise Subjective experience, subjectivity itself, isn't a problem for morality, rather that being a conscious Subject provides the basis for morality. It's what makes our behaviour Matter. It's what makes self-care Matter, and how we behave to others Matter.

...

How is this "mattering" different from simply caring about it? In other words, how is it different from what Hume is saying, that the basis of morality is sentiment or feelings, about things that we care about?

[Jack D Ripper]

On what basis would you be saying that that's how every single person judges between any two rules or courses of action?

In order to implement a rule there must be an agreement. In order to reach an agreement there must be a shared understanding of the objective. The only criteria of moral judgment that can be universally agreed to is "the best good and least harm for everyone".

...

Aside from the fact that everyone agreeing to something does not make it so (e.g., if everyone agrees that the world is flat, that would not make the world flat; this is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum that you are advocating), the simple fact is, there is no such universal agreement on that principle (not that it is even clear that it is a principle, but we can ignore that at present). If there were, there would not be the disputes in ethics that one easily finds in online forums. If there were universal agreement, it would not be that everyone who posts in response to you, seems to tell you that you are wrong. It is difficult to understand how you could possibly believe that this is something that has anything to do with universal agreement. There simply is no universal agreement on what the foundations of ethics is.

[Jack D Ripper]

Question:

Where and how does Hume specify this?

Specify what?

Did you not read the opening post? Do you not see the multiple references and links? Or are you asking someone else something about their post, but did not indicate who you were asking?

[Marvin_Edwards]

In the same fashion, the child psychologist and the pediatrician can tell you what is objectively good and bad for your child.

Rubbish.
Do you mean stuff like sissy aversion therapy?
Or the now much refuted Paiget method?
Maybe you are refering to the poilicy of segregation and racial profiling?
How about a bit of Freudian analysis?
Maybe you are referring to a damn good thrashing to knock some bloody sense into them?
Do please tell!

The child will resist a painful vaccination, even though it is good for him. The child's subjective experience is not a reliable guide to what is good or bad for him.

Yes, the main thing is to NEVER listen to the child you are quite correct. Good old Victorian values - a child should not be seen or heard.

Well, let's see.

Do you mean stuff like sissy aversion therapy?

The APA long ago removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Scientific objectivity resulted in the conclusion that homosexuality was not itself a disorder, because homosexuals were just as normal as everyone else. The only disorder they suffered was caused by others whose beliefs were false prejudices. So, thank goodness for scientific objectivity. Right?

Or the now much refuted Paiget method?

I don't know anything about that, but there's a nice article in wikipedia on Jean Paiget if you want to read up on him.

Maybe you are refering to the poilicy of segregation and racial profiling?

Segregation and racial profiling, once again, are examples of prejudicial (false) beliefs, that are dispelled by scientific objectivity!

How about a bit of Freudian analysis?

Well, I think that, as a pragmatist, I would prefer rational emotive therapy (RET). It is usually quicker and more effective. But the last I heard many psychologist still use psychotherapy among other tools to help their patients. I never became a psychologist myself, so I'm not current on such matters.

Maybe you are referring to a damn good thrashing to knock some bloody sense into them?

I think I can safely say that child abuse is not recommended by any child psychologist or pediatrician. Their views are based on scientific objectivity, not feelings of anger and frustration.

Do please tell!

I just did. Scientific objectivity is better than prejudices and false beliefs. Therefore it will be a better guide to moral behavior than feelings.

Yes, the main thing is to NEVER listen to the child you are quite correct. Good old Victorian values - a child should not be seen or heard.

Hmm. I think you have a good word for that. Yes, here it is:

Rubbish.

[Marvin_Edwards]

And yet, when faced with a new moral issue to be resolved, that is what they will use. They won't use the slogan. But they will perform the function.

It's not what I use, for example. For one, because there's no way to determine the "best good" and "least harm" for everyone, because different people consider different things to be good or bad (harmful).

So, are you saying you have no means for determining what behavior is good or bad, right or wrong? Or do you simply mean that your moral compass is so unique that you would never expect anyone to agree with you on any moral issue?

[Marvin_Edwards]

In order to implement a rule there must be an agreement. In order to reach an agreement there must be a shared understanding of the objective. The only criteria of moral judgment that can be universally agreed to is "the best good and least harm for everyone".

...

Aside from the fact that everyone agreeing to something does not make it so (e.g., if everyone agrees that the world is flat, that would not make the world flat; this is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum that you are advocating), the simple fact is, there is no such universal agreement on that principle (not that it is even clear that it is a principle, but we can ignore that at present). If there were, there would not be the disputes in ethics that one easily finds in online forums. If there were universal agreement, it would not be that everyone who posts in response to you, seems to tell you that you are wrong. It is difficult to understand how you could possibly believe that this is something that has anything to do with universal agreement. There simply is no universal agreement on what the foundations of ethics is.

Well, that leaves you with a bit of a quandary. How would you approach a recent moral issue such as gay marriage? What things do you think about in order to decide whether it is a good thing or a bad thing? For example, suppose it came up in a referendum, how would you go about making that decision?

[Sculptor1]

Rubbish.
Do you mean stuff like sissy aversion therapy?
Or the now much refuted Paiget method?
Maybe you are refering to the poilicy of segregation and racial profiling?
How about a bit of Freudian analysis?
Maybe you are referring to a damn good thrashing to knock some bloody sense into them?
Do please tell!

Yes, the main thing is to NEVER listen to the child you are quite correct. Good old Victorian values - a child should not be seen or heard.

Well, let's see.

Do you mean stuff like sissy aversion therapy?

The APA long ago removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Scientific objectivity resulted in the conclusion that homosexuality was not itself a disorder, because homosexuals were just as normal as everyone else. The only disorder they suffered was caused by others whose beliefs were false prejudices. So, thank goodness for scientific objectivity. Right?

Or the now much refuted Paiget method?

I don't know anything about that, but there's a nice article in wikipedia on Jean Paiget if you want to read up on him.

Maybe you are refering to the poilicy of segregation and racial profiling?

Segregation and racial profiling, once again, are examples of prejudicial (false) beliefs, that are dispelled by scientific objectivity!

How about a bit of Freudian analysis?

Well, I think that, as a pragmatist, I would prefer rational emotive therapy (RET). It is usually quicker and more effective. But the last I heard many psychologist still use psychotherapy among other tools to help their patients. I never became a psychologist myself, so I'm not current on such matters.

Maybe you are referring to a damn good thrashing to knock some bloody sense into them?

I think I can safely say that child abuse is not recommended by any child psychologist or pediatrician. Their views are based on scientific objectivity, not feelings of anger and frustration.

Do please tell!

I just did. Scientific objectivity is better than prejudices and false beliefs. Therefore it will be a better guide to moral behavior than feelings.

Yes, the main thing is to NEVER listen to the child you are quite correct. Good old Victorian values - a child should not be seen or heard.

Hmm. I think you have a good word for that. Yes, here it is:

Rubbish.

You just ain't getting this are you?

[Jack D Ripper]

Aside from the fact that everyone agreeing to something does not make it so (e.g., if everyone agrees that the world is flat, that would not make the world flat; this is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum that you are advocating), the simple fact is, there is no such universal agreement on that principle (not that it is even clear that it is a principle, but we can ignore that at present). If there were, there would not be the disputes in ethics that one easily finds in online forums. If there were universal agreement, it would not be that everyone who posts in response to you, seems to tell you that you are wrong. It is difficult to understand how you could possibly believe that this is something that has anything to do with universal agreement. There simply is no universal agreement on what the foundations of ethics is.

Well, that leaves you with a bit of a quandary. How would you approach a recent moral issue such as gay marriage? What things do you think about in order to decide whether it is a good thing or a bad thing? For example, suppose it came up in a referendum, how would you go about making that decision?

That is getting us very far from the subject of this thread. I will indulge you this time, but do not plan on doing so in the future, as you seem to be doing your best to derail this thread to make it about something other than the subject of the opening post. Indeed, I suggest that you start your own thread, in which you try to convince everyone of your ethical theory, which does not belong in this thread, which is supposed to be about Hume, not you.

Regarding gay marriage, the motivation that people have against it is primarily, if not entirely, religious. Laws should not be based on religious rules, unless the religion is demonstrated to be true. (Which, in practice, simply means that laws should not be based on religious rules.) Laws should be based on what will best promote an harmonious society, with as little damage to any individual as possible. The short response is, there is no good reason to forbid gay marriage, and therefore it should be allowed. Laws should serve a useful purpose, or that particular law should not exist. So a law forbidding gay marriage is one that should not exist.

Now, I could stop there (and probably should because you should not be asking such a question in this thread), but let us consider a common argument against gay marriage that I have encountered many times. The claim is made that allowing gay marriage will destroy marriage. That is really a moronic claim, unworthy of consideration. But let us consider it anyway. Not that it is any of your business, I will tell you a little about myself, because it is convenient for the discussion. I am a man. I am married to a woman. The change in the law allowing gay marriage did nothing to my marriage. It is completely irrelevant. It makes no difference to my marriage if you marry a man, or if you marry a woman, or if you do not marry at all. The same idea applies to every other member of society; who they marry, or if they marry, is irrelevant to my marriage (excepting only if the marriage of these other people includes either me or my wife; in other words, in the event of bigamy, which is a different matter, and whether such a marriage were gay or not would be an irrelevant aspect of it). The only way it would destroy marriages would be if the people who were already married thought, damn!, if only I had waited, I could have had a gay marriage!, and then got a divorce so that they could have a gay marriage. So what one encounters in the real world against gay marriage is utter crap, which is what one should reasonably expect when the real motive is religious claptrap.

Gay marriage affects you if you decide to have a gay marriage. Otherwise, it is pretty insignificant in your life, though many religious fanatics are fascists who wish to control the actions of others that have little or nothing to do with them.

[Marvin_Edwards]

You just ain't getting this are you?

What I'm getting is that you have some prejudices about the notion of objectivity, that you are not viewing objectivity objectively.