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

David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

I have been asked by someone to start this thread. So I have decided to cobble together some things that I have posted elsewhere, fitting them together to hopefully make a coherent whole. I have also added in some quotes I have not posted here before. Also, I favored using Hume's own words as much as reasonably possible, to avoid accusations of misrepresenting Hume or troublesome questions about what Hume actually stated. I have also included links for you to find where he stated what I claim he stated, so that you can read as much of the context as you desire. So here we go.

If you want to read up on this, the first thing to read is David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. You can read it for free here (notice, there are two books there; the first one is An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, which is an entirely different book; it is well worth reading, but it is about something else):

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hume ... -of-morals



The idea that the basis for ethics or morality is empathy differs from what the ancient philosophers had to say, as they tended to say that it was based on reason (many modern philosophers have as well, like Kant). We see this in Socrates and Plato saying that to know the good is to do the good. Hume says that knowledge, by itself, does not make anyone good. (In A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume famously and provocatively wrote, "’Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." [Book II, Part III, Section III].) It is feelings that are the source and motivation for ethics, not reason. And, of course, not just any feelings, but what we would call "empathy" (Hume does not use the word "empathy"; he calls it "the sentiment of humanity" and possibly uses some other terms, but it is what we normally call "empathy"). So, anyone lacking empathy will lack the foundations of ethics. No teaching of facts is going to give them that foundation; reason does not touch this. Of course, someone lacking empathy might pretend, and might do it well enough to avoid going to prison (most, I have read, do pretend well enough for that, though people without empathy are overrepresented in prisons), but they lack the foundation of ethics, according to Hume.

What we find in this are a couple of things. First, we get an explanation for why the philosophers who have been looking for a foundation of ethics out in the world have failed to do so, since it isn't "out there", but inside people. And this is also not the straightforward subjectivism that many advocate on forums such as this one, as it is not merely personal preference that Hume is discussing.


Here are some samples from An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals to get a better idea of what Hume is saying, and why he is saying it:

David Hume wrote:There has been a controversy started of late, much better worth examination, concerning the general foundation of Morals; whether they be derived from Reason, or from Sentiment; whether we attain the knowledge of them by a chain of argument and induction, or by an immediate feeling and finer internal sense; whether, like all sound judgement of truth and falsehood, they should be the same to every rational intelligent being; or whether, like the perception of beauty and deformity, they be founded entirely on the particular fabric and constitution of the human species.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_362

David Hume wrote: The end of all moral speculations is to teach us our duty; and, by proper representations of the deformity of vice and beauty of virtue, beget correspondent habits, and engage us to avoid the one, and embrace the other. But is this ever to be expected from inferences and conclusions of the understanding, which of themselves have no hold of the affections or set in motion the active powers of men? They discover truths: but where the truths which they discover are indifferent, and beget no desire or aversion, they can have no influence on conduct and behaviour. What is honourable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it. What is intelligible, what is evident, what is probable, what is true, procures only the cool assent of the understanding; and gratifying a speculative curiosity, puts an end to our researches.



Extinguish all the warm feelings and prepossessions in favour of virtue, and all disgust or aversion to vice: render men totally indifferent towards these distinctions; and morality is no longer a practical study, nor has any tendency to regulate our lives and actions.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_366


David Hume wrote:
... Personal Merit consists altogether in the possession of mental qualities, useful or agreeable to the person himself or to others.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_558

David Hume wrote:
And as every quality which is useful or agreeable to ourselves or others is, in common life, allowed to be a part of personal merit; so no other will ever be received, where men judge of things by their natural, unprejudiced reason, without the delusive glosses of superstition and false religion. Celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude, and the whole train of monkish virtues; for what reason are they everywhere rejected by men of sense, but because they serve to no manner of purpose; neither advance a man’s fortune in the world, nor render him a more valuable member of society; neither qualify him for the entertainment of company, nor increase his power of self-enjoyment? We observe, on the contrary, that they cross all these desirable ends; stupify the understanding and harden the heart, obscure the fancy and sour the temper. We justly, therefore, transfer them to the opposite column, and place them in the catalogue of vices; nor has any superstition force sufficient among men of the world, to pervert entirely these natural sentiments. A gloomy, hair-brained enthusiast, after his death, may have a place in the calendar; but will scarcely ever be admitted, when alive, into intimacy and society, except by those who are as delirious and dismal as himself.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_560

David Hume wrote:
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

David Hume wrote:
But though reason, when fully assisted and improved, be sufficient to instruct us in the pernicious or useful tendency of qualities and actions; it is not alone sufficient to produce any moral blame or approbation. Utility is only a tendency to a certain end; and were the end totally indifferent to us, we should feel the same indifference towards the means. It is requisite a sentiment should here display itself, in order to give a preference to the useful above the pernicious tendencies. This sentiment can be no other than a feeling for the happiness of mankind, and a resentment of their misery; since these are the different ends which virtue and vice have a tendency to promote. Here therefore reason instructs us in the several tendencies of actions, and humanity makes a distinction in favour of those which are useful and beneficial.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_585

David Hume wrote: 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

David Hume wrote:Whatever contradiction may vulgarly be supposed between the selfish and social sentiments or dispositions, they are really no more opposite than selfish and ambitious, selfish and revengeful, selfish and vain. It is requisite that there be an original propensity of some kind, in order to be a basis to self-love, by giving a relish to the objects of its pursuit; and none more fit for this purpose than benevolence or humanity. The goods of fortune are spent in one gratification or another: the miser who accumulates his annual income, and lends it out at interest, has really spent it in the gratification of his avarice. And it would be difficult to show why a man is more a loser by a generous action, than by any other method of expense; since the utmost which he can attain by the most elaborate selfishness, is the indulgence of some affection.

2nd1963: 231Now if life, without passion, must be altogether insipid and tiresome; let a man suppose that he has full power of modelling his own disposition, and let him deliberate what appetite or desire he would choose for the foundation of his happiness and enjoyment. Every affection, he would [282] observe, when gratified by success, gives a satisfaction proportioned to its force and violence; but besides this advantage, common to all, the immediate feeling of benevolence and friendship, humanity and kindness, is sweet, smooth, tender, and agreeable, independent of all fortune and accidents. These virtues are besides attended with a pleasing consciousness or remembrance, and keep us in humour with ourselves as well as others; while we retain the agreeable reflection of having done our part towards mankind and society. And though all men show a jealousy of our success in the pursuits of avarice and ambition; yet are we almost sure of their good-will and good wishes, so long as we persevere in the paths of virtue, and employ ourselves in the execution of generous plans and purposes. What other passion is there where we shall find so many advantages united; an agreeable sentiment, a pleasing consciousness, a good reputation? But of these truths, we may observe, men are, of themselves, pretty much convinced; nor are they deficient in their duty to society, because they would not wish to be generous, friendly, and humane; but because they do not feel themselves such.

2nd1963: 232Treating vice with the greatest candour, and making it all possible concessions, we must acknowledge that there is not, in any instance, the smallest pretext for giving it the preference above virtue, with a view of self-interest; except, perhaps, in the case of justice, where a man, taking things in a certain light, may often seem to be a loser by his integrity. And though it is allowed that, without a regard to property, no society could subsist; yet according to the imperfect way in which human affairs are conducted, a sensible knave, in particular incidents, may think that an act of iniquity or infidelity will make a considerable addition to his fortune, without causing any considerable breach in the social union and confederacy. That honesty is the best policy, may be a good general rule, but is liable to many exceptions; and [283] he, it may perhaps be thought, conducts himself with most wisdom, who observes the general rule, and takes advantage of all the exceptions.

2nd1963: 233I must confess that, if a man think that this reasoning much requires an answer, it would be a little difficult to find any which will to him appear satisfactory and convincing. If his heart rebel not against such pernicious maxims, if he feel no reluctance to the thoughts of villainy or baseness, he has indeed lost a considerable motive to virtue; and we may expect that this practice will be answerable to his speculation. But in all ingenuous natures, the antipathy to treachery and roguery is too strong to be counterbalanced by any views of profit or pecuniary advantage. Inward peace of mind, consciousness of integrity, a satisfactory review of our own conduct; these are circumstances, very requisite to happiness, and will be cherished and cultivated by every honest man, who feels the importance of them.

Such a one has, besides, the frequent satisfaction of seeing knaves, with all their pretended cunning and abilities, betrayed by their own maxims; and while they purpose to cheat with moderation and secrecy, a tempting incident occurs, nature is frail, and they give into the snare; whence they can never extricate themselves, without a total loss of reputation, and the forfeiture of all future trust and confidence with mankind.

But were they ever so secret and successful, the honest man, if he has any tincture of philosophy, or even common observation and reflection, will discover that they themselves are, in the end, the greatest dupes, and have sacrificed the invaluable enjoyment of a character, with themselves at least, for the acquisition of worthless toys and gewgaws. How little is requisite to supply the necessities of nature? And in a view to pleasure, what comparison between the unbought satisfaction of conversation, society, study, even health and [284] the common beauties of nature, but above all the peaceful reflection on one’s own conduct; what comparison, I say, between these and the feverish, empty amusements of luxury and expense? These natural pleasures, indeed, are really without price; both because they are below all price in their attainment, and above it in their enjoyment.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_613


This is from the appendix:
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

David Hume wrote:II. When a man, at any time, deliberates concerning his own conduct (as, whether he had better, in a particular emergence, assist a brother or a benefactor), he must consider these separate relations, with all the circumstances and situations of the persons, in order to determine the superior duty and obligation; and in order to determine the proportion of lines in any triangle, it is necessary to examine the nature of that figure, and the relation which its several parts bear to each other. But notwithstanding this appearing similarity in the two cases, there is, at bottom, an extreme difference between them. A speculative reasoner concerning triangles or circles considers the several known and given relations of the parts of these figures, and thence infers [290] some unknown relation, which is dependent on the former. But in moral deliberations we must be acquainted beforehand with all the objects, and all their relations to each other; and from a comparison of the whole, fix our choice or approbation. No new fact to be ascertained; no new relation to be discovered. All the circumstances of the case are supposed to be laid before us, ere we can fix any sentence of blame or approbation. If any material circumstance be yet unknown or doubtful, we must first employ our inquiry or intellectual faculties to assure us of it; and must suspend for a time all moral decision or sentiment. While we are ignorant whether a man were aggressor or not, how can we determine whether the person who killed him be criminal or innocent? But after every circumstance, every relation is known, the understanding has no further room to operate, nor any object on which it could employ itself. The approbation or blame which then ensues, cannot be the work of the judgement, but of the heart; and is not a speculative proposition or affirmation, but an active feeling or sentiment. In the disquisitions of the understanding, from known circumstances and relations, we inter some new and unknown. In moral decisions, all the circumstances and relations must be previously known; and the mind, from the contemplation of the whole, feels some new impression of affection or disgust, esteem or contempt, approbation or blame.

2nd1963: 241Hence the great difference between a mistake of fact and one of right; and hence the reason why the one is commonly criminal and not the other. When Oedipus killed Laius, he was ignorant of the relation, and from circumstances, innocent and involuntary, formed erroneous opinions concerning the action which he committed. But when Nero killed Agrippina, all the relations between himself and the person, and all the circumstances of the fact, were previously known to him; but the motive of [291] revenge, or fear, or interest, prevailed in his savage heart over the sentiments of duty and humanity. And when we express that detestation against him to which he himself, in a little time, became insensible, it is not that we see any relations, of which he was ignorant; but that, for the rectitude of our disposition, we feel sentiments against which he was hardened from flattery and a long perseverance in the most enormous crimes. In these sentiments then, not in a discovery of relations of any kind, do all moral determinations consist. Before we can pretend to form any decision of this kind, everything must be known and ascertained on the side of the object or action. Nothing remains but to feel, on our part, some sentiment of blame or approbation; whence we pronounce the action criminal or virtuous.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_629


Of course, I am leaving out the majority of his arguments for his position, and therefore recommend that you read the book. The old standard text for this is the Selby-Bigge edition revised by Nidditch, though Oxford has come out with a new edition that is supposed to replace it as "definitive". (Before the revisions by Nidditch, the earlier Selby-Bigge edition was the standard, and before that the Green & Grosse edition of Hume's philosophical works.) However, you can read it in any edition from a respectable publisher, and it should be okay. You can also read it online here:

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hume ... -of-morals

That is the Selby-Bigge edition, without the revisions by Nidditch, because it is in the public domain, and the Nidditch revised version is under copyright by Oxford.


Hume's position explains why the philosophers who have looked for an objective foundation for ethics in pure reason have failed to do so (because reason isn't the foundation of ethics). His position also has the virtue of being consistent with how ethical terms are commonly used; one typically does not merely mean to be expressing a personal preference when one makes an ethical pronouncement; typically, it is quite different from saying that one prefers chocolate ice cream over vanilla. One does not generally expect all of one's personal preferences to meet with universal or near universal agreement, but one does tend to expect that in moral or ethical pronouncements, as, for example, when one states that is it wrong to throw live babies into a meat grinder. On such points, one generally expects near universal agreement.

So, do you have any questions about this? Any comments you would care to make?
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
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 »

Okay. I've read enough. The error is simple. Sentiment is malleable. We have all been raised to feel good or feel bad about certain things. The sentiment in the southern states towards their negroes allowed them to enslave them. The sentiment towards gay men used to be such that it was not surprising to anyone when they were victimized and beaten. The sentiments with which Donald Trump was raised allowed him to spread rumors and lies about his political opponents.

Therefore, it follows that sentiments are unreliable guides to what is moral and immoral. Hume's moral sentiments were likely conventional among the better educated of his time. The moral rules that made him feel good and the immoral actions that made him take offense were likely ingrained in him by the society in which he was raised.

The problem is that one can acquire a taste for evil behavior by embracing pathologically it out of love, or out of self-justification, or out of necessity for ones own survival.

Therefore, like the other Utilitarians who believe the point of morality is to feel pleasure and avoid pain, his guidance falls short of moral efficacy.

Because feelings are malleable, the correct order is to first determine what is objectively good, and then choose to feel good about it.

The role of religion is to help people to feel good about doing good and being good. Religion is in the business of managing our sentiments, which are our spiritual/emotional experiences. Outside of formal religion, the family itself manages the moral sentiments of its children.
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 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 6:56 pm Okay. I've read enough.

That is what one says when one stops reading. Since I am pretty sure you have not read the entire book, this means you are judging prematurely.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 6:56 pm
The error is simple. Sentiment is malleable. We have all been raised to feel good or feel bad about certain things. The sentiment in the southern states towards their negroes allowed them to enslave them. The sentiment towards gay men used to be such that it was not surprising to anyone when they were victimized and beaten. The sentiments with which Donald Trump was raised allowed him to spread rumors and lies about his political opponents.

Therefore, it follows that sentiments are unreliable guides to what is moral and immoral. Hume's moral sentiments were likely conventional among the better educated of his time. The moral rules that made him feel good and the immoral actions that made him take offense were likely ingrained in him by the society in which he was raised.

The problem is that one can acquire a taste for evil behavior by embracing pathologically it out of love, or out of self-justification, or out of necessity for ones own survival.

Therefore, like the other Utilitarians who believe the point of morality is to feel pleasure and avoid pain, his guidance falls short of moral efficacy.

Because feelings are malleable, the correct order is to first determine what is objectively good, and then choose to feel good about it.

The role of religion is to help people to feel good about doing good and being good. Religion is in the business of managing our sentiments, which are our spiritual/emotional experiences. Outside of formal religion, the family itself manages the moral sentiments of its children.

It seems you did not read in the opening post as far as the quotes regarding the "monkish virtues", which Hume tells us are vices, which are the result of having false beliefs that pervert one's feelings. (I almost left out the quotes regarding that, as it goes beyond the basic idea, but I am now glad that I included things that you are evidently ignoring.) Consider, for example (an example not in Hume):

Exodus 22:18 (KJV):

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Believing that is going to involve quite a lot for such a short statement, as it involves believing that witches are real, and that they should be killed. Of course, such a belief is not a part of one's natural sentiments; it is the result of believing the writings of primitive people.

So, Hume is not saying that everyone's feelings are infallible (and, indeed, he said that not everyone had the appropriate feelings at all, though I suspect he would be unpleasantly surprised at modern research into how many people lack empathy). If one believes ridiculous fairy tales, then those fairy tales may influence one's feelings. The source of morality, though, is not those fairy tales.

But getting back to the main point, if one does not have feelings about any particular matter of fact, then knowledge of that fact is not going to affect one's actions. When you are crossing the street, and get out of the way of a speeding car, it is not the mere fact that the car might hit you that causes you to get out of the way. What causes you to get out of the way is that you do not want to get hit by the car. It is your feelings that motivate action, not bare matters of fact. And this is also true in any moral action, that it is feelings that motivate the action, not mere matters of fact about which one is indifferent.



Regarding this:

"Because feelings are malleable, the correct order is to first determine what is objectively good"

For this, I defy you to prove what is "objectively good". Philosophers have attempted this for literally thousands of years, and they have failed completely. If you imagine that you can do better than all of them, you should consider whether it is more likely that you are correct and more intelligent than all of them, or that you are delusional and fooling yourself. And then, whatever might be "objectively good" (according to you), it will make no difference for one's actions if one does not care about it. Which is one of the points Hume makes.

Giving your whole sentence:

"Because feelings are malleable, the correct order is to first determine what is objectively good, and then choose to feel good about it."

The last part of the sentence is absurd. One does not simply "choose" to feel about things. I defy you to "choose" to feel good about what Hitler did. It is not a matter of choice how one feels about many things, and it is ridiculous to claim that it is a matter of choice. You do not choose how you feel about things. You feel about them based on what you are.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
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 »

One does not simply "choose" to feel about things. I defy you to "choose" to feel good about what Hitler did.
And yet the German populace did precisely that, because that was the religion that the Nazis evangelized. Trump's populism is religious. And Sam Harris is a popular cult leader.

Feelings are malleable. We can acquire new feelings about things. That's why feelings are not a guide to morality. Rather, one must first discover what is objectively good, and then choose to feel good about it.
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 »

We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. That is the objective basis of moral judgment.
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 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 10:21 pm
One does not simply "choose" to feel about things. I defy you to "choose" to feel good about what Hitler did.
And yet the German populace did precisely that, because that was the religion that the Nazis evangelized.

...

You literally do not know what you are saying. There were many assassination attempts against Hitler (do an online search if you doubt this), and there were a number of people who refused military service in Nazi Germany (again, do an online search if you doubt this). The results were not good for them (again, do an online search if you doubt this). The idea that everyone just decided to love Hitler is nothing short of idiotic. Do some history research on this please, before you respond to this.

Among those who went along with what Hitler was doing, that does not mean that they liked Hitler. Many went along with Hitler because they did not want to be executed. Many people will do all sorts of things that they find detestable in order to save their lives. Surely, you realize that that is true?
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

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

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 10:23 pm Marvin_Edwards » Today, 3:23 am

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. That is the objective basis of moral judgment.

Marvin you have repeatedly made this statement in the full knowledge that many people do not agree with it or share your reasoning. It has egalitarian appeal, but why do you think this is “objective”? Do you take it to be a self-evident truth? If so why do so many others not see it as self-evident? Of course even if it is true, and harm and good open to unbiased calculation, if you don’t care about the fact it is unlikely to influence your behaviour (which is, I think, Hume’s point).

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 10:23 pm y Marvin_Edwards » Today, 3:23 am

We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.

If morality is based on our needs (as individuals or groups), how do we determine what, or how important, those might be and in what sense are peoples’ feelings about matters irrelevant? Cold logic is not a basis for most human behaviour and that is, perhaps, just as well, since it can lead to horrors every bit as terrible as pure passion. Could it be that a messy and unsatisfying mix is the best we can hope for?
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

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

Post by chewybrian »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 10:23 pm We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. That is the objective basis of moral judgment.
You often say this but never show how it holds up. How are: "best", "good", "least" and "harm" things which can said to be objective, quantitative statements of fact? Let's take it all the way to the ground level and say that staying alive is good and dying is bad. So what if your death results in some greater good for others when we sum it all up? If we could knock you off an divide up your stuff, maybe we think that our happiness is increased in total to a number that exceeds your loss in giving up your life. But what, after all, are these units we should use to measure good and bad? If there is some unit to be used, how can it be tallied except through self-reporting? How is it ever anything but a subjective judgement, whether by an individual or a group?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

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

Post by Syamsu »

People talking about "empathy", are trying to make what is emotional, into something rational.

Empathy is subjective, so what is said to be an expression of empathy, can equally be said to be not an expression of empathy. Same as it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful or ugly.

To say empathy is the basis of morality, is equal to saying love is the basis, or God, or fear. But to say empathy, is to pretend to be really clever about emotions, pretend to have objective knowledge about what is inherently subjective. It means that expressions that are commonly judged to be expressions of empathy, are confused with empathy itself. That the word empathy is confused with empathy.

Spirit is the proper general name for the substance of what is subjective, including fear, empathy, God, love. Therefore the basis of morality is the spirit. The general name does not have any pretenses about it of having objective knowledge of what is subjective. Therefore it is better to say the spirit is the basis of morality, although it is not wrong to say empathy or fear is the basis.
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 »

Wossname wrote: October 24th, 2020, 6:37 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 10:23 pm Marvin_Edwards » Today, 3:23 am

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. That is the objective basis of moral judgment.
Marvin you have repeatedly made this statement in the full knowledge that many people do not agree with it or share your reasoning.
Yes. So, it bears repeating until they recognize it as an obvious fact that they already agree with, because they are already applying this criteria to all new moral issues.
Wossname wrote: October 24th, 2020, 6:37 am It has egalitarian appeal, but why do you think this is “objective”?
It is the object (ultimate end goal) of our interest in morality. It provides a yardstick for seeing how far we've come and how far we've yet to go.
Wossname wrote: October 24th, 2020, 6:37 am Do you take it to be a self-evident truth? If so why do so many others not see it as self-evident?
Yes. I believe that anyone who seriously asks themselves the very basic questions like, "Why morality? Why should we care about it? What is the point of being moral? What is it good for?" will eventually settle on the answer "to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone".
Wossname wrote: October 24th, 2020, 6:37 am Of course even if it is true, and harm and good open to unbiased calculation, if you don’t care about the fact it is unlikely to influence your behaviour (which is, I think, Hume’s point).
The preacher then brings to the floor the problem of human suffering and invokes your empathy, the problem of human indifference and cruelty and invokes your ire, the possibility of peace and a world of plenty and invokes your joy and aspiration.

The consequentialist determines the best ethics via moral judgment. The deontologist then spreads it as the word of God.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 10:23 pm y Marvin_Edwards » Today, 3:23 am

We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.
Wossname wrote: October 24th, 2020, 6:37 am If morality is based on our needs (as individuals or groups), how do we determine what, or how important, those might be ...
This importance of various needs is addressed by Abraham Maslow in his "Theory of Human Motivation" which explains a "Hierarchy of Needs". For example, the immediate physical needs take precedence over long term needs (allow me to catch my breath before you try to feed me). That's the notion behind the hierarchy. The bottom level must be addressed and secure before the higher levels.
Wossname wrote: October 24th, 2020, 6:37 am ... and in what sense are peoples’ feelings about matters irrelevant? Cold logic is not a basis for most human behaviour and that is, perhaps, just as well, since it can lead to horrors every bit as terrible as pure passion. Could it be that a messy and unsatisfying mix is the best we can hope for?
There is a natural positive sentiment toward those who feed and clothe and love us, and a natural negative sentiment toward strangers whose behavior is less predictable or less positive. Generally, when we raise our children, we teach them how we feel about things, by what we say and what we do.

But I suspect we need to set our prior biases aside (e.g., toward Jews, blacks, gays, southerners, yankees, women, men, etc.) if we are to progress morally and achieve the best good and least harm for EVERYONE.

It is not a question of logic. It is a question of reasoning and a question of objective facts. And, yes, I think we can always do better.
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

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

Post by Syamsu »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 24th, 2020, 8:23 am
It is not a question of logic. It is a question of reasoning and a question of objective facts. And, yes, I think we can always do better.
We can see that wherever they have gone very far in objectifying what is good, it has been a total disaster. National socialism asserting to wipe out the inferior as socialist selection. Scientific socialism.

Objective good inclines towards the view in the Moonraker movie, just kill everyone and start over with a controlled population of optimal human beings.
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 »

Syamsu wrote: October 24th, 2020, 8:35 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 24th, 2020, 8:23 am
It is not a question of logic. It is a question of reasoning and a question of objective facts. And, yes, I think we can always do better.
We can see that wherever they have gone very far in objectifying what is good, it has been a total disaster. National socialism asserting to wipe out the inferior as socialist selection. Scientific socialism. Objective good inclines towards the view in the Moonraker movie, just kill everyone and start over with a controlled population of optimal human beings.
Explain how "killing everyone" satisfies the criteria of "the best good and the least harm for everyone". I would think that killing everyone would be a significant harm, to everyone.

If something has been a "total disaster", then that would be objective evidence that it was not "the best good and the least harm for everyone".
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

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

Post by Syamsu »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 24th, 2020, 8:44 am
Syamsu wrote: October 24th, 2020, 8:35 am

We can see that wherever they have gone very far in objectifying what is good, it has been a total disaster. National socialism asserting to wipe out the inferior as socialist selection. Scientific socialism. Objective good inclines towards the view in the Moonraker movie, just kill everyone and start over with a controlled population of optimal human beings.
Explain how "killing everyone" satisfies the criteria of "the best good and the least harm for everyone". I would think that killing everyone would be a significant harm, to everyone.

If something has been a "total disaster", then that would be objective evidence that it was not "the best good and the least harm for everyone".
Repace the inferior people and system, with the superior people and system. A little biomass destruction never hurt anyone.
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 »

I don't see how saying "The foundation of ethics is reason/empathy/whatever" isn't simply a matter of announcing "I'm not going to call x 'ethics' if x doesn't have feature(s) a (b, c, etc.)" And that's fine insofar as it goes--it tells us about how someone is going to choose to use a term.

I prefer to use a broader characterization, where ethics simply amounts to stances on interpersonal behavior, with respect to interpersonal behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette. (And keeping in mind that (i) "interpersonal" can also sometimes be "behavior towards oneself," and (ii) persons aren't necessarily limited to humans.) For my usage of the term, it doesn't matter if the stances in question are arrived at via empathy as a foundation, reason as a foundation, throwing the I Ching as a foundation, whatever combination of foundations, etc. A further requirement on my usage is that the person with the stance actually holds the stance as something they have relatively strong feelings about--if we're not talking about something they care enough about to be moved when they encounter violations of the interpersonal behavior they find acceptable, then I'd not call that x "ethics." So that tells you something about the way I use the term.

At any rate, there's no way to get around the fact that these stances ultimately amount to personal preferences that people have. Whether we're talking about ethics motivated by empathy or reason or whatever, that's still the case.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

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

Post by Sculptor1 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 23rd, 2020, 10:21 pm
One does not simply "choose" to feel about things. I defy you to "choose" to feel good about what Hitler did.
And yet the German populace did precisely that, because that was the religion that the Nazis evangelized. Trump's populism is religious. And Sam Harris is a popular cult leader.

Feelings are malleable. We can acquire new feelings about things. That's why feelings are not a guide to morality. Rather, one must first discover what is objectively good, and then choose to feel good about it.
Germans felt empathy for their tribe. The decision to support Hitler of a minority of the population was still empathic, the others following the tragic apathy of the entire human race complied because it is easier to comply than risk life changing sanctions. By the time the **** was in the fan, Germans switched to protection mode as the rest of the world was now a threat.

Feelings are not so much malleable, but subject to manipulation. The pride you feel in the USA is exactly the same innate emotional response that Germans felt when they were convinced that Jews were a threat to their way of life, that the Rhineland and the Sudetenland was theirs and that Austria ought to be part of a greater Germany, by the time those minor conquests had been completed there was plenty of justification for Poland.
IN the same way the AMerican defeat in Korea was a justification to invade Vietnam and both were due to the irrational fear of "communism". Once these atrocities had become normalised the US disregard for Cambodia and Laos followed.
What makes you so different?

Yes we can attach feelings to new things, but the underlying feelings are innate. And THAT is the point here.
You mistake the feeling with the direction of the thing that they can be directed towards.
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