ALL Humans Ought To Breathe is a Moral Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

... all the philosophical theories by all notable philosophers are grounded on definition of the terms they used.
Show me one who do not define the terms they used?

Hume!

Don't try to pull a fast one when you are ignorant.

Philosophers continue to debate about David Hume's case against the rationality of belief in miracles. ... Hume defines a miracle as an event that (a) is caused by God (directly, or indirectly through an 'invisible agent') and (b) 'violates' (or 'transgresses') a law of nature (76, 77).
Works written: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 07.00088.x

[RCSaunders]

... all the philosophical theories by all notable philosophers are grounded on definition of the terms they used.
Show me one who do not define the terms they used?

Hume!

Don't try to pull a fast one when you are ignorant.

Philosophers continue to debate about David Hume's case against the rationality of belief in miracles. ... Hume defines a miracle as an event that (a) is caused by God (directly, or indirectly through an 'invisible agent') and (b) 'violates' (or 'transgresses') a law of nature (76, 77).
Works written: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 07.00088.x

I really do not care if you do not agree with me, VA, but if you are really interested in what is wrong with Hume's entire philosophy, as part of a series of articles I wrote some time ago, Cultural Marxist Revolution, there is a four part series on hume entitled "Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism," Part1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Now it does not matter to me if you think I'm ignorant, but before you embarrass yourself accusing people of things you don't know you should find out if what you are saying is true. Read the articles. Hume was a very bad philosopher who greatly damaged the whole field of philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hume!

Don't try to pull a fast one when you are ignorant.

Philosophers continue to debate about David Hume's case against the rationality of belief in miracles. ... Hume defines a miracle as an event that (a) is caused by God (directly, or indirectly through an 'invisible agent') and (b) 'violates' (or 'transgresses') a law of nature (76, 77).
Works written: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 07.00088.x

I really do not care if you do not agree with me, VA, but if you are really interested in what is wrong with Hume's entire philosophy, as part of a series of articles I wrote some time ago, Cultural Marxist Revolution, there is a four part series on hume entitled "Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism," Part1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Now it does not matter to me if you think I'm ignorant, but before you embarrass yourself accusing people of things you don't know you should find out if what you are saying is true. Read the articles. Hume was a very bad philosopher who greatly damaged the whole field of philosophy.

I am not going to waste time reading what you wrote, but the main point is you claimed,
"Hume was a very bad philosopher who greatly damaged the whole field of philosophy."

My counter is, as I had stated, Hume is at times touted as one of the greatest philosophers of all times [top 10 or 20] by various pollings.

Note from SEP;

Generally regarded as one of the most important philosophers to write in English, David Hume (1711–1776) was also well known in his own time as an historian and essayist.
A master stylist in any genre, his major philosophical works—A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–1740), the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as well as his posthumously published Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779)—remain widely and deeply influential.

Although Hume’s more conservative contemporaries denounced his writings as works of scepticism and atheism, his influence is evident in the moral philosophy and economic writings of his close friend Adam Smith. Kant reported that Hume’s work woke him from his “dogmatic slumbers” and Jeremy Bentham remarked that reading Hume “caused the scales to fall” from his eyes. Charles Darwin regarded his work as a central influence on the theory of evolution. The diverse directions in which these writers took what they gleaned from reading him reflect both the richness of their sources and the wide range of his empiricism.
Today, philosophers recognize Hume as a thoroughgoing exponent of philosophical naturalism, as a precursor of contemporary cognitive science, and as the inspiration for several of the most significant types of ethical theory developed in contemporary moral philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/

Suggest you read the above article in full.

This article from IEP also wrote favorable of Hume;
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/

If you google 'Hume's contribution to Philosophy and Humanity' you will note there are loads of article which are positive.

In contrast, yours is merely one of the few miserable criticisms of Hume.
Show which or many notable Western Philosophers has critiqued Hume severely.

I don't agree with everything from Hume, especially his "no ought from is" but I understand how he arrived at such a conclusion and I am able to side step it for the better.
I don't agree with Hume's main focus on empiricism but that is not a serious issue for me where I can reconciled empiricism with rationalism on a complementary Yin-Yang basis.

[Age]

"ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is a Moral Objective Law as evident and justified from empirical evidence on human nature.

This is proof, that 'ought' can be derived from "is".
This 'ought' is reasoned and inferred from actual empirical evidence on human nature.

Therefore it is morally wrong if one do not want to breathe.

HOW have you concluded, and so WHY do you say, it is morally wrong if one does not want to breathe?

Who are you to tell another how they 'ought' to live THEIR life?

Note there are people who commit against this objective moral law when they sealed a plastic bag over their head then die as a result.

But you have to form a sound and valid argument that 'this' is an objective moral law first. You have not done that yet. Some of these people want to seal a plastic bag over their head then die as a result. So, obviously there are those who do not want to live anymore, and so to them there is no objective more law that insists that they have to breathe any more.

These are those who are morally incompetent.

Well you have not yet shown that 'you' are morally competent yet. You are coming across as though you are telling "others" what to do with their life, and that you judge them if they do not do as you say and believe is "moral and right".

If this 'ought' do not exists as a moral fact, then the vice-versa, i.e. 'all humans ought not to breathe' will by reason result in the extermination of the human species.

And just turning this around as though it proves something is an extermination of logical reasoning.

Thus the absolute objective moral law "ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is a default and inherent within humanity as a moral fact.

Throwing the 'fact' word is not helping you here. It is just a ploy to appear more true.

The point is this moral fact is only to be used as a GUIDE only and not to be enforced on anyone. I repeat to be used as a GUIDE ONLY.

Okay, thank you for telling us this. I was just about to go and dig up my great, great, great grandmother and grandfather and tell them that they have to start breathing again because "veritas aequitas" just told us: ALL Humans Ought To Breathe, and it is a Moral Objective, and that they 'ought' to do what "veritas aequitas" tells them that they OUGHT to be doing.

ALL 'humans ought to be breathe' is an absolute absurd and ridiculous idea, especially to those that have ALREADY stopped breathing.

The task of humanity is to establish fool proof approaches to develop the natural activation of this moral fact within the consciousness of all humans so that they act spontaneously and effortless without any external enforcement nor threats.
This will involve positive neural changes within the moral faculty in the brain of each individual. How? that is the $6 million question.

The above is a counter argument against moral relativists who argue there are no inherent absolute and objective moral laws that are independent of human views.

There is, of course, One moral lore, which, when followed will create a Truly peaceful and loving world for Everyone. But this only happens with absolute voluntary enthusiasm, and NOT when one person is telling "others" what they OUGHT to be doing. The peaceful way of living will come about after learning how the Mind and the brain work, which will SHOW HOW and WHY all adult human beings have their own relativistic views on what is right and what is wrong in Life. Just like you are showing you have right here now in this post of yours.

This is your own relative and subjective view of of what is morally right. It is obviously NOT what is a moral objective at all.

What IS morally Objective IS what IS agreed with, accepted, and wanted to be followed voluntarily by ALL.

Find out and discover what that IS that is agreed with, accepted, and wanted to be followed voluntarily by each and EVERY one, then you will SEE how and why what you said and are doing here is actually Objectively morally WRONG itself.

[Age]

Your argument doesn't sit right with me.

Slavery is wrong, it seems to me, cuz a person is intrinsically, irrevocably, his own. To lay claim to him is to violate that owness.

But the individual who chooses not to breathe (who commits suicide) isn't bein' immoral (he's bein' stupid or crazy, but not immoral) because he is his own; he doin' with himself as he chooses. Suicide is dumb (or crazy), and it lays grief on loved ones, but it violates no other person's owness.

Anyway: I can't agree with your argument, but I'm with you on wantin' to stick a thumb in the relativist's eye.

Note what is morality,

Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Choosing not to breathe [committing suicide with a seal plastic over the head] is wrong and bad behavior, i.e. it is not right nor good behavior.

What is NOT right NOR good behavior is telling people that want to kill themselves that that is wrong and bad behavior.

The very reason people choose to kill themselves is because of this WORLD that we are living in now. It is people like you and your JUDGMENTAL views of "others" and what they do that is part of the reason why people choose to kill themselves.

Is what 'you', "veritas aequitas", are doing and saying here in this thread right or wrong, bad or good behavior?

Therefore not breathing and causing one's own death is morally wrong.

What is morally WRONG is that adult human beings have created a "world" in which so many people WANT to kill themselves EVERY day. In this "world", in the days of when this is written, which is created by adult human beings, every 40 seconds one person commits suicide.

You are showing that you have absolutely no compassion, no care, nor any empathy for WHY a human being would choose not to live in this "world" anymore, over wanting to keep living. And all you are concerned about is that you KNOW what is right and wrong, and that you BELIEVE you have the right to tell "others" what they "ought" and "ought not" be doing.

Have you ever considered that people TELLING "others" what they OUGHT to be doing might be one reason WHY so many people WANT to cause their own death EVERY day?

"ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is applicable to those who stop other people from breathing via choking, poisoning and preventing them from breathing via other means.

If you really BELIEVE that telling others that they "ought not stop others breathing" was needed to be told, then you are a few thousand years behind.

Btw, morality is not merely related to slavery.
For example, lying is immoral of a certain degree but it does not violate no other person's own_ness.

By coincidence would this "certain degree" be in relation to what you subjectively decide?

Morality is also "virtue in sexual matters; chastity" etc.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/morality?s=t

There are many aspects of morality that do not impose on the 'own_ness' of other people.

Suicide is dumb (or crazy), and it lays grief on loved ones, but it violates no other person's owness.

Suicide not only lay grief on loved ones but do generate loads of other suffering on others. For example if a person owe a lot of money, i.e. incur a large debt with another, then commit suicide, that will cause terrible financial loss to the other person.

So, 'morality' has to do with money to you, correct?

But the point is this;
by default, 'all humans ought to breathe' is an absolute moral law because there is no compromise to it.

Except when you cannot do it anymore. That is one pretty big compromise I would say.

If on the contrary we all, 'all humans ought not to breathe' then the human species will be extinct in theory.

All all other animals, and earth itself (if it could), would be more than happy if this happened.

Therefore "all humans ought to breathe" is an absolute moral law at the least within moral theory and principles.

This is a strong argument to counter the moral relativist stance who would have to adopt the point ''all humans can choose not to breathe' which will condone and promote suicide rather than prevent and deter suicide.

Btw, as usual, I stated an absolute moral law is merely a GUIDE, not a law that must be enforced in any way.

[RCSaunders]

Don't try to pull a fast one when you are ignorant.

I really do not care if you do not agree with me, VA, but if you are really interested in what is wrong with Hume's entire philosophy, as part of a series of articles I wrote some time ago, Cultural Marxist Revolution, there is a four part series on hume entitled "Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism," Part1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Now it does not matter to me if you think I'm ignorant, but before you embarrass yourself accusing people of things you don't know you should find out if what you are saying is true. Read the articles. Hume was a very bad philosopher who greatly damaged the whole field of philosophy.

I am not going to waste time reading what you wrote, but the main point is you claimed,
"Hume was a very bad philosopher who greatly damaged the whole field of philosophy."

You don't have to read anything you don't want to, of course, but it's a bit of hubris to criticize someone else' views if you don't know what they are.

My counter is, as I had stated, Hume is at times touted as one of the greatest philosophers of all times [top 10 or 20] by various pollings.

Note from SEP;

Generally regarded as one of the most important philosophers to write in English, David Hume (1711–1776) was also well known in his own time as an historian and essayist.
A master stylist in any genre, his major philosophical works—A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–1740), the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as well as his posthumously published Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779)—remain widely and deeply influential.

Although Hume’s more conservative contemporaries denounced his writings as works of scepticism and atheism, his influence is evident in the moral philosophy and economic writings of his close friend Adam Smith. Kant reported that Hume’s work woke him from his “dogmatic slumbers” and Jeremy Bentham remarked that reading Hume “caused the scales to fall” from his eyes. Charles Darwin regarded his work as a central influence on the theory of evolution. The diverse directions in which these writers took what they gleaned from reading him reflect both the richness of their sources and the wide range of his empiricism.
Today, philosophers recognize Hume as a thoroughgoing exponent of philosophical naturalism, as a precursor of contemporary cognitive science, and as the inspiration for several of the most significant types of ethical theory developed in contemporary moral philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/

This article from IEP also wrote favorable of Hume;
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/

Suggest you read the above article in full.

Well I've read both the Stanford University article (about eighteen years ago) and the IEP article, which provided nothing I did not already know from reading Hume's own works. When I'm interested in what a philosopher taught, I'm not interested in what others think he said, I'm only interested in what the philosopher actually wrote.

If you google 'Hume's contribution to Philosophy and Humanity' you will note there are loads of article which are positive.

In contrast, yours is merely one of the few miserable criticisms of Hume.
Show which or many notable Western Philosophers has critiqued Hume severely.

I don't agree with everything from Hume, especially his "no ought from is" but I understand how he arrived at such a conclusion and I am able to side step it for the better.
I don't agree with Hume's main focus on empiricism but that is not a serious issue for me where I can reconciled empiricism with rationalism on a complementary Yin-Yang basis.

There is never any shortage of ignorant people who will believe that whatever is widely believed must be true. Of course most philosophers since Hume praise him, he set the foundation for all the is wrong with philosophy since his day.

[henry quirk]

Your argument doesn't sit right with me.

Slavery is wrong, it seems to me, cuz a person is intrinsically, irrevocably, his own. To lay claim to him is to violate that owness.

But the individual who chooses not to breathe (who commits suicide) isn't bein' immoral (he's bein' stupid or crazy, but not immoral) because he is his own; he doin' with himself as he chooses. Suicide is dumb (or crazy), and it lays grief on loved ones, but it violates no other person's owness.

Anyway: I can't agree with your argument, but I'm with you on wantin' to stick a thumb in the relativist's eye.

Note what is morality,

Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Choosing not to breathe [committing suicide with a seal plastic over the head] is wrong and bad behavior, i.e. it is not right nor good behavior.
Therefore not breathing and causing one's own death is morally wrong.

"ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is applicable to those who stop other people from breathing via choking, poisoning and preventing them from breathing via other means.

Btw, morality is not merely related to slavery.
For example, lying is immoral of a certain degree but it does not violate no other person's own_ness.

Morality is also "virtue in sexual matters; chastity" etc.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/morality?s=t

There are many aspects of morality that do not impose on the 'own_ness' of other people.

Suicide is dumb (or crazy), and it lays grief on loved ones, but it violates no other person's owness.

Suicide not only lay grief on loved ones but do generate loads of other suffering on others. For example if a person owe a lot of money, i.e. incur a large debt with another, then commit suicide, that will cause terrible financial loss to the other person.

But the point is this;
by default, 'all humans ought to breathe' is an absolute moral law because there is no compromise to it.
If on the contrary we all, 'all humans ought not to breathe' then the human species will be extinct in theory.
Therefore "all humans ought to breathe" is an absolute moral law at the least within moral theory and principles.

This is a strong argument to counter the moral relativist stance who would have to adopt the point ''all humans can choose not to breathe' which will condone and promote suicide rather than prevent and deter suicide.

Btw, as usual, I stated an absolute moral law is merely a GUIDE, not a law that must be enforced in any way.

As I see: a man owns himself and has a right to his life, liberty, and property. Morality, for me, extends from that. Deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property and you've acted immorally. Deprive yourself of life, liberty, or property and you've (maybe) been a dumbass or a nutjob, but you haven't been immoral.

As for the counter to the relativist: I offered mine over in Pete's thread where it was ignored, dismissed, or explained away, but not refuted, so I'm done with that.

[RCSaunders]

As I see: a man owns himself and has a right to his life, liberty, and property. Morality, for me, extends from that. Deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property and you've acted immorally. Deprive yourself of life, liberty, or property and you've (maybe) been a dumbass or a nutjob, but you haven't been immoral.

From the perspective of morality or ethics, then, is it only other people's lives and property that have a value, and so long as one does nothing to threaten or harm anyone else's life, liberty, or property one is perfectly moral?

Then why should anyone be moral? If one's own life doesn't matter morally or ethically, why should they care about anyone else's life, from a moral perspective?

It seems to me there are two problems with that view. One is its similarity to altruism, it makes the object of moral values other people's lives, not one's own. The other is that it is entirely negative. It says nothing about what one should do, only about what they should not do. As a moral code, it is useless for anyone who really wants to live a life of purpose and value, to oneself, or to anyone else.

I live morally, not because it's good for other people, but because it is the best for me. I would never harm or threaten another individual's person or property because it could never be in my self interest. It is not only dangerous, it is contrary to the requirements of my nature as a human being if I choose to do more than merely exist and actually have a life that's worth living.

If moral or ethical principle are not going to be a guide for how an individual must behave in order live a successful, fulfilled life of joy and achievement, then anything going by the name morality or ethics is useless.

[RCSaunders]

Btw, as usual, I stated an absolute moral law is merely a GUIDE, not a law that must be enforced in any way.

A, "guide," to what? Why should anyone follow a guide if they don't know what it is leading to?

[VA, would mind saying what your first langauge is? It might help, sometimes, in understanding exactly what you are trying to say. This is no at all a criticism. I speak some other languages but not as well as you do English.]

[henry quirk]

As I see: a man owns himself and has a right to his life, liberty, and property. Morality, for me, extends from that. Deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property and you've acted immorally. Deprive yourself of life, liberty, or property and you've (maybe) been a dumbass or a nutjob, but you haven't been immoral.

From the perspective of morality or ethics, then, is it only other people's lives and property that have a value, and so long as one does nothing to threaten or harm anyone else's life, liberty, or property one is perfectly moral?

Then why should anyone be moral? If one's own life doesn't matter morally or ethically, why should they care about anyone else's life, from a moral perspective?

It seems to me there are two problems with that view. One is its similarity to altruism, it makes the object of moral values other people's lives, not one's own. The other is that it is entirely negative. It says nothing about what one should do, only about what they should not do. As a moral code, it is useless for anyone who really wants to live a life of purpose and value, to oneself, or to anyone else.

I live morally, not because it's good for other people, but because it is the best for me. I would never harm or threaten another individual's person or property because it could never be in my self interest. It is not only dangerous, it is contrary to the requirements of my nature as a human being if I choose to do more than merely exist and actually have a life that's worth living.

If moral or ethical principle are not going to be a guide for how an individual must behave in order live a successful, fulfilled life of joy and achievement, then anything going by the name morality or ethics is useless.

You've so totally misinterpreted or misunderstood what I posted (which plain and unambiguous), I don't even know where to start with corrections.

For example: I say a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property and depriving him of life, liberty, or property is immoral. Somehow, you think this is an other valuation when it's plainly a two street (that is, if I offend against you, I'm wrong; if you offend against me, you're wrong).

Again, I don't even know where to start with corrections.

[Sculptor]

"ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is a Moral Objective Law as evident and justified from empirical evidence on human nature.

Yes, even Hitler ought to breath too?

Possibly the stupidest think I've read this week
Just how desperate are you to link morality and objectivity??
LOL

[Skepdick]

Yes, even Hitler ought to breath too?

Many willed his death. None could follow through. He went out on his own terms.

Will without power is an impotent will.

Just how desperate are you to link morality and objectivity??

They are already linked. The desperation is you pretending that you prefer death over life at this very moment.

Philosophers struggling to remain relevant - job security, I guess?

[RCSaunders]

You've so totally misinterpreted or misunderstood what I posted (which plain and unambiguous), I don't even know where to start with corrections.

Henry, you are much too intelligent to not have understood my point. But I'll make it simple.

For example: I say a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property and depriving him of life, liberty, or property is immoral.

Why should anyone not deprive someone else of life, liberty, or property? Just saying it's immoral doesn't say why anyone should avoid being immoral.

Somehow, you think this is an other valuation when it's plainly a two street (that is, if I offend against you, I'm wrong; if you offend against me, you're wrong).

I happen to agree with you that if I offend against you, I'm wrong, but I know why it's wrong. It is not just wrong because you or I think so. Why is it wrong, Henry?

Again, I don't even know where to start with corrections.

Give it an honest shot, because I know you can. I'm not opposed to your view, I'm trying to help you see you have a good rational reason for it.

[henry quirk]

As I say, have said, and no doubt will say, in multiple places: a man owns himself.

He is his own. He's not a commodity. To claim him as property, to use him as resource, is an immoral violation of him.


I'm trying to help you see you have a good rational reason for it.

Yeah, I already have that: owness. If you agree, great; if you disagree, let's tussle (and, no offense, I didn't ask for, and I don't need, your help).


Henry, you are much too intelligent to not have understood my point.

Yeah, I'm pretty friggin' bright. Your point was buried under a load of what I now understand was just good, old fashioned, condescension, cleverness, and coat tail ridin'. Make your points without usin' me as a test bed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I really do not care if you do not agree with me, VA, but if you are really interested in what is wrong with Hume's entire philosophy, as part of a series of articles I wrote some time ago, Cultural Marxist Revolution, there is a four part series on hume entitled "Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism," Part1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Now it does not matter to me if you think I'm ignorant, but before you embarrass yourself accusing people of things you don't know you should find out if what you are saying is true. Read the articles. Hume was a very bad philosopher who greatly damaged the whole field of philosophy.

I am not going to waste time reading what you wrote, but the main point is you claimed,
"Hume was a very bad philosopher who greatly damaged the whole field of philosophy."

You don't have to read anything you don't want to, of course, but it's a bit of hubris to criticize someone else' views if you don't know what they are.

I totally agree with you, it would be very intellectually dishonest if one were to criticize someone else views if one has not read or don't know what they are.
This is why I often criticized those who condemned Kant's view without reading nor understanding [not necessary to agree with] his work.

Thus I did not counter on the details you wrote about Hume. That would be tedious besides you are not a notable philosopher like Hume.

This is why I merely picked on your general statement,
"Hume was a very bad philosopher who greatly damaged the whole field of philosophy."
and counter it with the views of from other credible philosophers, e.g. from SEP and IEP.

I suggest, instead of going all over with Hume, why not critique Hume's main proposals, i.e.

• 1. Re Causation
  2. Bundle theory
  3. On Miracles
  4. On induction

If you can convince me Hume was wrong on the above, then I will accept Hume was a very bad philosopher.

If you have done so, point to me where in those links you have done so.
I don't want to risk hours reading them and finding you have not written any criticism of the above Hume's views.

My counter is, as I had stated, Hume is at times touted as one of the greatest philosophers of all times [top 10 or 20] by various pollings.

Note from SEP;

Generally regarded as one of the most important philosophers to write in English, David Hume (1711–1776) was also well known in his own time as an historian and essayist.
A master stylist in any genre, his major philosophical works—A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–1740), the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as well as his posthumously published Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779)—remain widely and deeply influential.

Although Hume’s more conservative contemporaries denounced his writings as works of scepticism and atheism, his influence is evident in the moral philosophy and economic writings of his close friend Adam Smith. Kant reported that Hume’s work woke him from his “dogmatic slumbers” and Jeremy Bentham remarked that reading Hume “caused the scales to fall” from his eyes. Charles Darwin regarded his work as a central influence on the theory of evolution. The diverse directions in which these writers took what they gleaned from reading him reflect both the richness of their sources and the wide range of his empiricism.
Today, philosophers recognize Hume as a thoroughgoing exponent of philosophical naturalism, as a precursor of contemporary cognitive science, and as the inspiration for several of the most significant types of ethical theory developed in contemporary moral philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/

This article from IEP also wrote favorable of Hume;
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/

Suggest you read the above article in full.

Well I've read both the Stanford University article (about eighteen years ago) and the IEP article, which provided nothing I did not already know from reading Hume's own works. When I'm interested in what a philosopher taught, I'm not interested in what others think he said, I'm only interested in what the philosopher actually wrote.

Then counter the above points I mentioned above instead of all the frivolous complains.

If you google 'Hume's contribution to Philosophy and Humanity' you will note there are loads of article which are positive.

In contrast, yours is merely one of the few miserable criticisms of Hume.
Show which or many notable Western Philosophers has critiqued Hume severely.

I don't agree with everything from Hume, especially his "no ought from is" but I understand how he arrived at such a conclusion and I am able to side step it for the better.
I don't agree with Hume's main focus on empiricism but that is not a serious issue for me where I can reconciled empiricism with rationalism on a complementary Yin-Yang basis.

There is never any shortage of ignorant people who will believe that whatever is widely believed must be true. Of course most philosophers since Hume praise him, he set the foundation for all the is wrong with philosophy since his day.

I agreed with Hume's bundle theory, but definitely not because it is widely believed, thus must be true. Note Hume's Bundle Theory was a novel idea during his time.
I came from the Eastern Philosophy's background and has no problem understanding Hume's Bundle Theory which was justified thousand years ago within Buddhism [from 500BC] and Jainism 10,000 years ago.