The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

While Hume "No Ought From Is" [NOFI] is touted and insisted dogmatically as the default there can be no objective moral facts, it is actually relied upon based on gaps in empirical knowledge that Hume lacks due to his time in the 1700s.

I have read Hume's work very thoroughly and came across loads of points where he acknowledged his ignorance of the internal workings of the human brain.

Here is a sample [there are more] where Hume acknowledged his ignorance of the depth of the knowledge that is pertinent to the issue.

A Treatise of Human nature [1739]
  • Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
    1. those of SENSATION and
    2. those of REFLEXION.

    The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
    The second [impression of reflexion] is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order.

    An [8] impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or other.

    The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
    SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.
    ………………..
    Its effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv’d into original qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain.
    SECTION IV.: Of the connexion or association of ideas.
In the above Hume acknowledged he lacked the knowledge then to know the causes of the sentiments and drives he was talking about.

What Hume claimed is Moral Conclusions of oughts are derived from these sources which to him is unknown.
During Hume's time there was little knowledge about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, etc.

However, by now we have sufficient knowledge to understand more about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.
Hume wrote:The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.
Yes it is the works of anatomists and natural philosophers [scientists] to dig deeper into the roots of sensations.
Then it is from these scientific facts that we can understand the Moral Potential therein as the inherent moral facts derivable from a moral framework.

This conclusion is not a derivation from impressions as Hume spoke within his limited knowledge but a conclusion of the direct evidences of the cause, i.e. the moral potential and moral facts.

The point is those who echo blindly what Hume supposedly said NEVER research into the depths of his works to have a thorough understanding of his philosophy.

Views?
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

Post by Impenitent »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:35 am ...
This conclusion is not a derivation from impressions as Hume spoke within his limited knowledge but a conclusion of the direct evidences of the cause, i.e. the moral potential and moral facts.

The point is those who echo blindly what Hume supposedly said NEVER research into the depths of his works to have a thorough understanding of his philosophy.

Views?
"direct evidences" of the cause attained from which impressions?

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Impenitent wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:35 am ...
This conclusion is not a derivation from impressions as Hume spoke within his limited knowledge but a conclusion of the direct evidences of the cause, i.e. the moral potential and moral facts.

The point is those who echo blindly what Hume supposedly said NEVER research into the depths of his works to have a thorough understanding of his philosophy.

Views?
"direct evidences" of the cause attained from which impressions?

-Imp
There is sufficient of direct evidences at present [in contrast to Hume's time] on how the brain works, e.g. the primal and secondary emotions, the lower brain, the mid-brain, the higher prefrontal cortex and the whole brain.
The discovery of mirror neurons is a path to the linkage of the brain with morality.
All these knowledge were not available to Hume.

There is still a lot of knowledge we need to know of the brain and scientists are very optimistic they will master the workings of the whole human brain soon with the gradual discovery of knowledge of the brain via the Human Connectome Project.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

Post by Impenitent »

which specific neurons and synapses have been mapped (and empirically proven to be identical in every single human brain) that link to morality?

"optimism" is not evidence

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Impenitent wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:43 am which specific neurons and synapses have been mapped (and empirically proven to be identical in every single human brain) that link to morality?

"optimism" is not evidence

-Imp
I did not intend that this is a confirmed claim.

I stated,

The discovery of mirror neurons is a path to the linkage of the brain with morality.

There is still a lot of knowledge we need to know of the brain and scientists are very optimistic they will master the workings of the whole human brain soon with the gradual discovery of knowledge of the brain via the Human Connectome Project.

In contrast,
All these knowledge, potentials and possibilities were not available to Hume.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:25 am The discovery of mirror neurons is a path to the linkage of the brain with morality.
Of course parts of brains and minds are connected to what is called morality. Brains have to do with behavior, for example. Brains have to do with feelings. Mirror neurons can connect our feelings to the experiences of others. Empathy. But the leap from empathy to objective morals is, well, still a leap. Hume's lack of knowledge about mirror neurons hasn't caused his critique any problems.

Yes, we, most of us, have built in patterns that often lead to empathy. IOW we can feel sympathy for the suffering of others and even empathy.

But that doesn't make it something else. It means that we, as social mammals, since other mammals have mirror neurons and can feel empathy even cross-species. We can care about others. I doubt Hume would have been suprised by that.
Before the psychologist Edward Titchener (1867–1927) introduced the term “empathy” in 1909 into the English language as the translation of the German term “Einfühlung” (or “feeling into”), “sympathy”was the term commonly used to refer to empathy-related phenomena. If one were to point to a conceptual core for understanding these phenomena, it is probably best to point to David Hume’s dictum that “the minds of men are mirrors to one another,”(Hume 1739–40 [1978], 365) since in encountering other persons, humans can resonate with and recreate that person’s thoughts and emotions on different dimensions of cognitive complexity.
Oh, look, he even used the word 'mirrors'.

and
David Hume, for example, has suggested that moral judgments are based on peculiar sentiments of moral approbations and disapprobation, which are causally mediated by our ability to empathize— or what he called sympathy— with the pain and pleasures of others (See also Sayre-Mcord 1994 and 2014).
IOW Hume recognized the function even though he did not know of mirror neurons.

The problem is that while one can see how empathy and potentially mirror neurons play a role in morality, since we can suffer with others, this does not mean that any action or rule or attitude is objectively good. We might generate rules that people in general like. IOW there may be rules of behavior or guidelines that lead to consequences and attitudes that feel good to us. But that doesn't make them objectively good. Humans as a whole, for all we know, are a plague on the earth. What's good for us might not be good, if there is a good on the objective level, a moral good.

Just as things that make sharks or parasites feel good might not be good at the objective level, if there is one.

We can look at brains and behavior and try to move towards what we like, what we prefer at the interpersonal level at the societal level. I have no objection to that, though I think the enterprise is much harder than some think. Further even empathy is limited and even can cause problems when making decisions at larger scales. Problems meaning 'dlsliked consequences by many humans, including those who priortize empathy'.

But none of this points to a flaw in Hume's assessment.

And Hume's assessment on the other hand, regarding is and ought, does not take away at all from projects trying to find out what heuristics and guidelines lead to life being more like we like.
Post Reply