Hume's Ethics

[@bayliemonson9468]

Thank you so much! This was so easy to follow along with and understand!

[@Kdanieli238]

thank you for your lessons - you are a wonderful teacher - thank you!

[@jackcaputi]

Extremely interesting explanation, I really found profound your thoughts. Thanks a lot!

[@gregpappas]

Thanks so much for this. Very clear.

[@robinohara226]

Thank you so much I've been looking for a channel like this

[@kenani3668]

great explanation 🎉

[@CancelledPhilosopher]

"Reason is a slave to the passions."

[@colestockdale5616]

#Cancelled

[@vhawk1951kl]

Define " reason"?

[@vhawk1951kl]

translates as the mind is a helpless dreaming weakling, which is self-evident.

[@nephiindustries]

You’re a beast man! Thank you!! 🙏🏻

[@kuzuchan3361]

awesome lecture way easier to understand than the Wikipedia page

[@Houd1ny]

Verry good channel

[@wbiro]

He said that morality was emotion-based, which we now know is insane, given the philosophy that deals with Broader Survival, which gives us Ultimate Morality, and which is based on pure reason (and, as the name indicates, deals with survival, which defines 'sanity').

[@Tom-bf6up]

Hello sir you are the best professor of ethics department. I am a big fan of your Sir I requested to you that please make a video upon probity in governance

[@qwerpasdf]

I looked him up one time and if I remember correctly he's a professor at UT Austin, so I'm pretty sure all these videos he uploads might be for his class. So I don't think he takes requests.

[@Tom-bf6up]

@@qwerpasdf okay sir for replying

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

I’ve got a series on Justice coming up in May. And I’m interested in requests that I could work on over the summer.

[@Tom-bf6up]

@@PhiloofAlexandria thank a lot sir for taking the request

[@vhawk1951kl]

Only in kinderland - America could that dolt be a professor; the function of a professor is to teach not to preach his queer religion.

[@JPBotero717]

Great to see you back Profesor. I will like to be profesor like you. Do you have a study method to learn that much?

[@maximilyen]

Passion is the method.

[@vhawk1951kl]

You suppose this world needs another woolly-minded incoherent hysteric? This video is drivel, and a complete distortion of Hume who is particularly well known for the incontrovertible assertion that no sensible reason can be found for deriving a normative assertions from factual assertions or;there is no senseible reason to suppose that because X is as it is something else Y is likeable or dislikeable, which is self evident to anyone not stupefied by religion as your hero has been stupefied by religion. The dolt does not trouble himself to translate ought or should or try to set out what they mean, I think because it is plain that ought or should *can_only* translate as it-would-like -i-if... *What_Else* could either ought or should possibly mean?

[@vhawk1951kl]

It'called reading Hume titch, you might care to give it a try as and when...

[@faysal8597]

amazingly outlined Hume's approach on ethics; reason don't lead to morality.

[@vhawk1951kl]

What do you suppose either reason or morality, to be? you have not the faintest idea? *This* you are about to demonstrate

[@vhawk1951kl]

Your tiny problem is that you are about to demonstrate that you have absolutely_no* idea what you mean by, or seek to convey by, the word " morality"

[@maximilyen]

Very good .

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Thank you!

[@Diamondragan]

Much appreciated.

[@PJAlaska]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. Not just politicizing or deconstructing everything, which I find unhelpful and would simply ruin the experience for me.

[@e45127]

Awesome - as usual.

[@kredit787]

Intent would be needed to connect description with evaluation. Ironically, Hume derives prescription from a description when he says reason ought to be the slave of passions.

[@thegrunbeld6876]

I think he touches on that on the video, its our sentiment that drives us to act not reason. In that sense, intent or will is really just born out of our sentiment. Hence our feelings are the real source of our moral sense not reason.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why the desire to illustrate your innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment? How does saying that reason ought to be the slave of passions amount to to or constitute deriving a prescription from a description? What exactly do you suppose " reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”, to mean? You have not the faintest idea? *This* you are about to demonstrate. You are indeed innocent or not guilty of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment. Happy now?

[@asafashar1]

Hume relates to immediate decisions which do not require deliberations - whereby prescription and reasoning are unavoidable. Kahenman addressed this dichotomy, which I would the professor to mention.

[@rhythmandacoustics]

Hume and the empiricists have so many of their observations verified by modern science to be true, e.g cognitive biases. Can you do a video on how Philosophy still applies in the 21st century despite us being provided with so much data and technology? It appears that today big data and statistics dominate most of our lives.

[@zachariahjones9481]

big data and statistics are only useful, they go towards answering a question, and it is philosophy's job to formulate and ask and use the right questions.

[@GacLosen6556]

Hey all. I had a question. Western Philosophy is based on three schools of thought: Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, and Deontology. Which of these does Hume's philosophy fall under?

[@kadaganchivinod8003]

His kind of reasoning moral values later taken up by Nietzche? it seems to me, am I correct sir?

[@konradd-kafaik]

Nietzsche was looking at the ancients. He got many of his ideas very early and not through contemporary scholarship (maybe with exception of Schopenhauer? but I wouldn't know). if you read Nietzsche's book on tragedy in Greeks, you get a sense of how much the circles of people whom Hume would respect, address and debate with were irrelevant to Nietzsche. He had a very historically informed conception of morals, one which reflects the weight of hundreds of years of experience - this is developed in genealogy of morality. For Hume, principles [a la Newton or Aristotle] are the device for explanation, and he is far from treating history like Vico, Herder or Hegel (which is also Nietzsche's, a "high-resolution" sense of what historical experience does to morals) They do have similarities however, in treating of moral philosophy (just not thorough learning from each other), so it is a good question where and how much they differ

[@vhawk1951kl]

Nietzche did not concern himself with what are called " ethics" which he rightly dismissed as no more than relative and subjective and temporary likes and dislikes without any help from David Hume who was equally dismissive of so-called ethics or all that good/evil, ought/should, morality/ethics monkey business which is religious mumbo jumbo that only ever leads to trouble. If you boil all that good/evil, ought/should, morality/ethics monkey business or mumbic jum down to its bar bones all you will discover is relative subjective and temporary reactions of the emotional function, mechanism,brain , processor or machine that are likes and dislikes which Hume calls sentiments or the passions, which he correctly identifies as the engine or driving force in men(human beings/dreaming machines), or in the famous allegory of the hackney cab, the horse, and is not and was not the first to recognise that the mind or reason(which are not remotely the same thing) are helpless and inevitably the slave of the emotional(like/dislike) function, brain, processor or machine. all that good/evil, ought/should, morality/ethics monkey business is not a product of the mind or associative/dreaming function rain apparatus processor-which Hume would (perhaps mistakenly call) "Reason". The mind has no power or force but that it gets it from the emotional(like/dislike) function, brain processor apparatus or mechanism, which is probably why he saysthat"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them"(by implication) if the mind is to be any more that a helpless weakling trying to direct an enormously powerful horse -the emotional function, to which all men are willy nilly abject slaves.I think Hume's idea that the mind reason or associative or dreaming function might somehow control the at horse is fanciful, and I do'think he did suppose that that might be possible, because he was essentially a realist, an recognised that all that essentially religious good/evil, ought/should, morality/ethics monkey business is not a product of the mind, but little more than reactions of the boss or master function, which is self evident and incontrovertible; there is *Absolutely_No* difference between X is "*wrong *"and it-doesn't-like X which has*Fcuk_Nothing to do with the mind/associative dreaming function or apparatus regardless of what you call it, be it reason or pick-a-word.Good means no more than it-likes-it as does right, while evil bad or wrong are no more than it-doesn't-like it, and the sooner that mean(human beings/dreaming machines) wake up and smell that coffee the better All that morals bullshit is no more and no less that relative subjective and temporary likes and dislikes(reactions of the boss function) Declaring that reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them", is no more than making the best of a bad job or being realistic or making a virtue of necessity. If you were to say that X is or represents biting the heads off puppies and kittens and or kick babies, or pick-a-crime, declaring X to be" wrong, immoral or pick-a-bleat is wholly indistinguishable from declaring It-doesn't-like - it, because morals are no more than reactions of the boss function which renders the incoherent hysteric purporting to explain Hume's famous no-ought-from-an -is dictum even ,ore incoherent than he is hysterical. EWho knows why the little chap is concerned to prsuade others that there is something magic special or autorotative about his famous morals and that they are something*Other_Than* relative subjective likes and dislikes but the only possible explanation ca be a nasty dose of religion defined as any world view based on an set of related and unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms( all that good/evil, right/wrong out/should morality/ethics mumbic jum or monkey business) or simply any set of preconceptions, and religion is of course the creature of that boss or misster function the emotional(like/dislike) function, the said likes and dislikes coming from who-knows-where, they certainly are not a matter of choice they are not the result of reason or their are no particular reasons or rationale(as in ratio decidendi)about or for them The interesting question is *Why* the moralistic little religious is so exercised over whether or not his famous morals or ethics are -in reality, no more than relative subjective and temporary reactions of his boss or master? Why give a flying fcuk whether or not *"Wrong*" means neither more nor les that It-doesn't-like- it, when it is plain as day that they are master and man or object and shadow, the one being unseverable from the other and both indistinguishable inter se. If *"Wrong*" does*Not* mean neither more nor less than It-doesn't-like- it, what the devil *Does* "*Wrong"* mean? Isuppose one could ask tidles what exactly he supposes "*Wrong*" to mean or (if he supposes it to exist) what he supposes*Wrongness*" to be, having refreshed his memory on the fallacies of circularity, begging the question and argumentum ad populum The excitable little religious certainly has no idea what wrong *means* nor what he seeks to convey when he uses the term *other_than* by way of saying he doesn't*like-something , or it doesn't_like*- it. Conclusion*Wrong* is meaningless with out the master or boss function, or what Specifically *makes* the wrong wrong,*without* resort to the boss function? Simply can't be done because there*Is_No*difference between wrong and It-doesn't_like*-it. QED.

[@_lonelywolf]

However, in my opinion, reason should not remain the slave of passions and feelings. Indeed, a thorough investigation of the latter should reveal the fact that our feelings are the result of our conditioning, mainly of social, cultural and/or religious origins and nature. Then the rational validity of such a conditioning ought to be inquired and questioned-and possibly adjusted or even rejected if deemed necessary by reason. The claim or argument that "it's just our human nature" that reason must be overruled by feeling when making moral decisions, seems to be more of a philosophical laziness to me than anything else. In conclusion, while it is true that feelings always tend to precede reason, such feelings can and should be investigated by reason itself, always. For example, why is it wrong to kill or to torture someone for pleasure? According to Hume, well it's firstly because witnessing such an act would make one feel very uncomfortable, angry, or revolted, etc. Now, let us not stop there, but let us investigate instead the rational validity or basis of such a feeling. Let us in other words attempt to find a rational justification for feeling so. I would argue that there must be a number of rational reasons for us to find, which would justify and validate our feeling of disapprobation or repulsion toward homicide or torture for example. One possible reason could be that by tolerating such an act, it could potentially happen to us in the future; or we must have been taught (i.e. conditioned to think) that homicide and torture were wrong because they would most probably lead to an unstable or dangerous society, or an unsustainable life, chaos, death, etc. Most of us butcher and probably torture animals and living beings every day without being bothered at all. There must be a *reason* therefore... Feeling may be the law, but it should still be checked and justified by reason. This issue becomes even more relevant as we witness the dawn of the AI era: Moral sense, although based on feeling, that feeling must have a valid and codifiable rational basis.

[@vhawk1951kl]

"reason should not remain the slave of passions" translates as it-would-like-it -if reason were not remain the slave of passions and feelings? If only you had some clear idea what you mean by(or seek to convey when you use the word) "reason", but you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea what you mean by(or seek to convey when you use the word) "reason", because never once has it occurred to you to wonder what the word" reason" means, has it? Whatever you seek to convey by " reason"(and you have no idea) Is it not the case that the passions, emotional function or sentiments, or pick-a-word, are, as a matter of it -cannot-be-different, the boss or master of whatever you seek to convey by " reason"(and you have no idea) "reason", or - as the saying-goes:"If wishes were horses beggars would ride." You have never ever, in your whole life wondered what reason is, or what the*word* reason means, have you? Why don't you actually read Hume's book "A Treaties on Human Nature" , which is an easy-read by comparison with Kant's " critique of pure reason." Since you are plainly completely innocent of any kind if intellectual ability or accomplishment, perhaps it were more likeable, or preferable if you stayed at the intellectual shallow end of the pool of of philosophy, or at least learned to swim before venturing beyond that shallow end. Withe philosophy *Always* define you terms(the words you use) If the craig dolt were any kind of professor he would not only set out what Hume has to say about that religious mumbo jumbo, morals or ethics, he would set out Hume's reasoning which he does not do because he cannot because he does not like it, because he is a religious nutcase and completely the slave of his boss function. he simply*cannot * grasp that if you are going to set out the ideas of a philosopher, you must also be his advocate, and have a clear understanding of his case, which that Craig dolt does not do, because he lacks the wits. He completely distorts Hume's case Be_*cause* his boss does not *like* it.

[@pauljohnson7791]

I'm not a formal student of philosophy. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it can be reasoned that autonomy is a fact that leads to violence to that 'space' being immoral. I'm not educated enough to say all morals can be factually reasoned but I do believe that person good is sufficient for many morals under the heading of honesty or nonviolence.

[@vhawk1951kl]

You are clearly no student of anything being innocent of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment which you illustrate by failing to demonstrate any link between by whatever you mean by autonomy and whatever you mean by (but clearly have no idea) "violence. So or therefore what if "autonomy is a fact that leads to violence? Where and what is your syllogism?

[@colestockdale5616]

Normativity by analogia is Microplastics. It's everywhere and yes "EVERYWHERE"

[@Certaintyexists888]

But doesn’t Hume presuppose that we “ought” to be logical?

[@sriveltenskriev6271]

No he doesn’t.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

Even if he did, he wouldn't say it'a fact of nature that we ought to be logical. He would point to the practical benefits of logic, with respect to some other presupposed goals, like clear communication or thinking.

[@Certaintyexists888]

@@sriveltenskriev6271 😆

[@str8904]

Hume doesn’t outright say we ought to be logical. However, it is presupposed in the process of logic itself that there is a right and wrong and we should choose what’s right over what’s wrong.

[@vhawk1951kl]

No, nor can you cite anything from his writing that says anything of the sort.

[@KRGruner]

OK, that's a good description of Hume's (idiotic) philosophy, but where is the critique? Hume was obviously wrong, even if we can cut him some slack due to his preceding Darwin by quite a bit, but still. It would be interesting to also have a clear explanation of why this is all nonsense.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Who the devil is " us" or " we"?

[@herbertwraczlavski896]

That must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Has the ilustrious Hume ever heard of empathy? And what place does it have in human psyche? This is ludicrous! A child could outsmart him.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

@@herbertwraczlavski896 Of course he’s familiar with the concept-it’s central to his friend Adam Smith’s view-but he thinks it’s a feeling rather than an act of intellect or imagination.

[@herbertwraczlavski896]

@@PhiloofAlexandria Well, it is both! Emotion is what happens to us without the employment of our reason, but that does not imply by any means that existence of such feeling is without reason; that it exists "just because". I am baffled how could he settle with such a view.

[@vhawk1951kl]

What has empathy got to do with whether or not there can ever be any sensible or logical reason for deriving a prescriptive assertion from a descriptive ssertion? If you are completely innocent of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment, it may not be the best or most likable of ideas to advertise that fact quite so vividly. or: If you have the wits learning an of garden furniture, philosophy is *Not* for you

[@herbertwraczlavski896]

@@vhawk1951kl Empathy involves understanding and sharing the feelings of others. It plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between descriptive and prescriptive assertions. Here’s how: Understanding Context: Empathy helps us understand the context and emotions behind a descriptive assertion. For example, knowing that someone is sad (descriptive) can lead us to suggest they seek comfort (prescriptive). Moral and Ethical Considerations: Empathy often informs our moral and ethical frameworks. When we empathize with others, we are more likely to derive prescriptive assertions that aim to improve well-being. For instance, seeing someone in pain (descriptive) might lead us to assert that we should help them (prescriptive).