Ethics: Hume's Sentiments

Primary Reading: David Hume, "Morality Is Based on Sentiment," in James White's, "Contemporary Moral Problems."

Hume doesn't believe in absolute morals, although Hume never really believed in believing either. So that seems like a good place to start this post.

Hume argues that actions are not good or bad factually. It may be a fact that B cheated on S with R but there is nothing morally factual about B's actions (although she is a C.) It is only S's sentiments towards B's actions that make them wrong, as well as R's sentiments towards B's actions that probably also make them wrong but he is sort of a wimp anyways so he doesn't matter. Anyways, It is only factual that S feels like B committed a morally wrong action.

Now, this spits in the face of just about every other moral system. Utilitarians do not believe in absolute morals but they do live by the Greatest Happiness principle. They will show negative sentiments towards a greedy King, denying his people a moderate amount of happiness and forcing them to suffer so that he may live extravagantly. A Utilitarians sentiments lie in the Greatest Happiness principle, so it will be factual that they disapprove of the Kings actions but the actions in themselves are have no objective moral factuality. For a Universalist (i.e., someone who follows the Categorical Imperative,) the rule of thumb is to use the Law of Reciprocity. Essentially it is to act towards other people in a way that you would want them to act if your roles were reversed, which basically rules out murder, rape, lying, stealing, suicide... it's a really good list and a damn good moral system. However, this is perfectly set up for Hume as it is only your sentiment towards an action that makes it right or wrong. Universalism is great at making the subjective into an objective rule, but it is only objective insomuch as there is a subjective agent to create the action to begin with. That original subjective action is based on the sentiments of the agent, making it applicable to Hume's accusation.

You may be saying to yourself, "why aren't more people happy to call themselves Humean's if this theory is so great?" Well, that is because Hume says nothing about what to DO. This is great at classifying other moral theories, but says nothing itself about morals other than the fact that people care about certain things. What those things are depend entirely on the agent, but Hume gives no account of when it is ok to lie, or even if lying itself is a moral action. Realistically, this is not a moral theory, but a meta-ethical stance, looking at how we go about morals. Accepting it or denying it will not change the fact that you will adopt a moral theory (hopefully universalism... just saying.)

10 Second Version: Hume is kind of a douche. There are not absolute moral facts, just the fact that we feel for certain actions more so than others. This tells you nothing about what to do though. DO A BARREL ROLL!

Steve