Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

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

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

Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Whilst Hume reject 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' via reason and inferences from matter of fact, Hume nevertheless admit there are moral facts based on a matter-of-fact via human nature.
There are many supporting statement in Hume's writings to support the point that moral facts are inherent in human nature.
Here is one significant one;
Hume in Treatise of Human Nature wrote:
Take any action allow'd to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance.

Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice.

In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts.

There is no other matter of fact in the case.
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object.

You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action.

Here is a matter of fact; but ’tis the object of feeling, not of reason.

It lies in yourself, not in the object. 1

Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469
As I had stated, it was unfortunate for Hume that during his time there was no knowledge of human nature in terms of the anatomy of the brain, neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics and the likes.

If Hume have had knowledge of the above, I am sure he would have adopted our current advance knowledge of the above to support his matter-of-fact underlying the feeling of the moral propensity - that lies in the human self, i.e. human nature.

The above is food for further thought by those Moral Fact Deniers, who cling to Hume's 'no ought from is' from the obvious but are ignorant of the deeper issues claimed by Hume re human nature in his Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469.

Views?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

When I argues for the existence of objective moral facts, the moral fact deniers will always mockingly refer to;
-Hume's No Ought from IS [NOFI],
-Hume's Fork,
-Hume's Law,
-Hume's Guilotine,
-Hume's etc.
where they are merely focusing on hearsays without understanding the whole picture of Hume's view of morality.

As I had stated Hume's NOFI is primarily directed at theistic morality where the ought_s are commanded by a God via the holy texts delivered by the respective divine messengers and those oughts that are derived from reason without empirical justifications.

Point is Hume did attempt to justify moral facts via moral sentiments which are grounded on empirical matter of facts which he argued for but Hume's knowledge was severely limited to scientific justifications of those sentiments [e.g. sympathy - empathy] which we now have.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:52 am When I argues for the existence of objective moral facts, the moral fact deniers will always mockingly refer to;
-Hume's No Ought from IS [NOFI],
-Hume's Fork,
-Hume's Law,
-Hume's Guilotine,
-Hume's etc.
where they are merely focusing on hearsays without understanding the whole picture of Hume's view of morality.

As I had stated Hume's NOFI is primarily directed at theistic morality where the ought_s are commanded by a God via the holy texts delivered by the respective divine messengers and those oughts that are derived from reason without empirical justifications.

Point is Hume did attempt to justify moral facts via moral sentiments which are grounded on empirical matter of facts which he argued for but Hume's knowledge was severely limited to scientific justifications of those sentiments [e.g. sympathy - empathy] which we now have.
These two posts assume that an appeal to Hume's authority is the justification of the arguments people have with VA's position. VA is used to using appeals to authority himself, so he interprets other people mentioning Hume's IS/Ought position as them using an appeal to authority.

In fact, it's just a shorthand way of describing the issue. In terms of is/ought.

It doesn't make VA's position stronger if Hume had a range of thoughts on the issue.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Peter Holmes »

Yet another invalid argument.

Factual premise: Humans have 'sensations of disapprobation' in response to some experiences, such as murder.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, the moral wrongness of, for example, murder is a fact in human nature.

How hard can it be to unpack the stupidity of this reasoning? Evidently, extremely hard.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Belinda »

David Hume:
In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts.

There is no other matter of fact in the case.
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object.
The virtue of a pleasant act also escapes you.

We are not wild animals formed by natural selection ;nor are we artificially bred like Darwin's pigeons or pedigree dogs. Human nature is undefined. However one fact, perhaps the only fact, of human nature is we are mammals who nurture. Hume called it "sympathy".

Sympathy is the birthright of every man, and is rooted in biology, in nature not nurture. When a man lacks sympathy that condition is either pathological or is caused by
some false cognition which is often reinforced by a culture of belief.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:40 am Whilst Hume reject 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' via reason and inferences from matter of fact, Hume nevertheless admit there are moral facts based on a matter-of-fact via human nature.
There are many supporting statement in Hume's writings to support the point that moral facts are inherent in human nature.
Here is one significant one;
Hume in Treatise of Human Nature wrote:
Take any action allow'd to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance.

Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice.

In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts.

There is no other matter of fact in the case.
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object.

You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action.

Here is a matter of fact; but ’tis the object of feeling, not of reason.

It lies in yourself, not in the object. 1

Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469
As I had stated, it was unfortunate for Hume that during his time there was no knowledge of human nature in terms of the anatomy of the brain, neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics and the likes.

If Hume have had knowledge of the above, I am sure he would have adopted our current advance knowledge of the above to support his matter-of-fact underlying the feeling of the moral propensity - that lies in the human self, i.e. human nature.

The above is food for further thought by those Moral Fact Deniers, who cling to Hume's 'no ought from is' from the obvious but are ignorant of the deeper issues claimed by Hume re human nature in his Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469.

Views?
That section suits Pete better than you. He's strictly denying that there are truth values in moral statements, otherwise 'feeling' and 'reason' would be the other way round in there. The real debate is whether that section marks Hume as an actual non-cognitivist or whether he ultimately adopts a less severe position than that.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Peter Holmes »

As always with arguments for moral objectivity, an explanation of why humans have developed moral values and codes is supposed to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. And it simply can't. The end.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:45 pm That section suits Pete better than you. He's strictly denying that there are truth values in moral statements, otherwise 'feeling' and 'reason' would be the other way round in there. The real debate is whether that section marks Hume as an actual non-cognitivist or whether he ultimately adopts a less severe position than that.
Actually I think the real issue is that it doesn't matter. If Hume did have some text that seemed to or did in fact indicate some kind of moral realism...that's just what Hume thought. Unless PH or you have been arguing that moral realism is wrong because Hume thought it was, VA is just playing appeal to your authority, when it's more like Hume provided a nice simply way of parsing the issue, and that way has been mentioned.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:56 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:45 pm That section suits Pete better than you. He's strictly denying that there are truth values in moral statements, otherwise 'feeling' and 'reason' would be the other way round in there. The real debate is whether that section marks Hume as an actual non-cognitivist or whether he ultimately adopts a less severe position than that.
Actually I think the real issue is that it doesn't matter. If Hume did have some text that seemed to or did in fact indicate some kind of moral realism...that's just what Hume thought. Unless PH or you have been arguing that moral realism is wrong because Hume thought it was, VA is just playing appeal to your authority, when it's more like Hume provided a nice simply way of parsing the issue, and that way has been mentioned.
Agreed. The validity and soundness of an argument is all that ever counts. The rest is by-the-by.

(Not that working out a philosopher's position isn't an interesting thing to do - for those of us who are interested!)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:56 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:45 pm That section suits Pete better than you. He's strictly denying that there are truth values in moral statements, otherwise 'feeling' and 'reason' would be the other way round in there. The real debate is whether that section marks Hume as an actual non-cognitivist or whether he ultimately adopts a less severe position than that.
Actually I think the real issue is that it doesn't matter. If Hume did have some text that seemed to or did in fact indicate some kind of moral realism...that's just what Hume thought. Unless PH or you have been arguing that moral realism is wrong because Hume thought it was, VA is just playing appeal to your authority, when it's more like Hume provided a nice simply way of parsing the issue, and that way has been mentioned.
Sure, but if I reference Hume, Mackie or Blackburn, I'm likely to be referencing some spcific argument which I am probably borrowing for some purpose and that reference can help other people who are involved in this sort of thing to understand the surroundings for the point I am making. What I am not doing is making up some specious bullshit for a paper I downloaded and then placed unread into one of 765 folders for keeping things I have never read in.

VA keeps demanding references, as if he uses them the way I do. It is therefore valid to mention that he doesn't. Most of his 'reading' involves papers he downloads and then just sorts unread into folders, sometimes after converting from PDF to Word for some fucking reason. When he does cite a source, it is either one he doesn't understand such as the Hume above, or more often he cannot describe the contents at all because he has never read a word of it (as is the case for all of his references to Wittgenstein and Rorty for instance).
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:05 pm Agreed. The validity and soundness of an argument is all that ever counts. The rest is by-the-by.
Yes. I've noticed, over the years, how much VA includes some portion or other or links to some person or other or lists some books
as support, in appeals to authority.

I think he recently chided you for not quoting people, whereas he had. IOW I don't think he quite knows the difference between appeals to authority and using the work of others to help make an argument. He has managed both, but does not seem to know the difference.
(Not that working out a philosopher's position isn't an interesting thing to do - for those of us who are interested!)
Yes, absolutely. And I think good points were made in that area by FDP. And of course that could also be the bone of contention in a thread.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:35 pm Sure, but if I reference Hume, Mackie or Blackburn, I'm likely to be referencing some spcific argument which I am probably borrowing for some purpose and that reference can help other people who are involved in this sort of thing to understand the surroundings for the point I am making. What I am not doing is making up some specious bullshit for a paper I downloaded and then placed unread into one of 765 folders for keeping things I have never read in.
I agree. My criticism was aimed at VA. I haven't seen you or PH use Hume or anyone else in appeals to authority. I think Hume gave us a nice simple approach to thinking of the moral realism issue. Him coming up makes sense. I don't think VA knows the difference to processes like the one you described here and appeals to authority.
VA keeps demanding references, as if he uses them the way I do.
Exactly.

And recently he condemned academic philosophy as a whole, seeming to have forgotten that he has 'demonstrated' his expertise by showing lists of academic areas in philosophers and folders that were made around academic categories of philosophy.

He's hedging his bets and I'm not sure he's even noticing it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:01 am Yet another invalid argument.

Factual premise: Humans have 'sensations of disapprobation' in response to some experiences, such as murder.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, the moral wrongness of, for example, murder is a fact in human nature.

How hard can it be to unpack the stupidity of this reasoning? Evidently, extremely hard.
So you think David Hume was stupid?

Suggest you read Hume's Treatise of Human Nature before you made more stupid [unintelligent] strawman views on Hume.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by popeye1945 »

"There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so." Billy Shakespeare

"To god, all things are right and good, only to man, some things are and some things are not." Heraclitus
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:21 pm David Hume:
In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts.

There is no other matter of fact in the case.
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object.
The virtue of a pleasant act also escapes you.

We are not wild animals formed by natural selection ;nor are we artificially bred like Darwin's pigeons or pedigree dogs. Human nature is undefined. However one fact, perhaps the only fact, of human nature is we are mammals who nurture. Hume called it "sympathy".

Sympathy is the birthright of every man, and is rooted in biology, in nature not nurture. When a man lacks sympathy that condition is either pathological or is caused by
some false cognition which is often reinforced by a culture of belief.
Human nature is only a controversial when it is related to "man is made in the image of God" or there is a fixed essence of what it take to be a human being.

What is human is a subject of taxonomy of species with no certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Classified as 'human'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Human nature of merely the nature of what is human;
Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Thus human nature comprised whatever features of what is defined as 'human' and most of human features are similar to non-humans with few exceptions between higher primate and humans, example having function and sense of morality.

The point of this thread is, whatever is of human nature is grounded on facts, i.e. physical brain, neurons, algorithms, genes, DNA and quarks.
Hume recognized that feelings of sympathy or empathy are grounded on matter-of-fact of physical elements, i.e. within the anatomy of the brain which he admitted ignorance of [as expected in the 1700s].

Thus what Hume was referring to in this case was not the feelings which are emotions, but he was [indirectly] referring the physical matter of fact that generate those feelings.
At present we are familiar with the relevant physical matter of fact that support empathy [a complicated and complex process], i.e. mirror neurons being one of the elements of the empathy process.

Since the physical grounded empathy is a critical element of morality, thus there are objective moral facts which are denied by Peter & gang [relying merely on Hume's other stand i.e. god-ridden NOFI].
Post Reply