Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals

Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Hackett, Indianapolis, 1983



Hume was a proponent of Naturalistic philosophy - explained the world without reference to religious doctrine.
The inner and outer aspects of human life are unified in morality
Hume planned to use same naturalistic and scientific methods to explore the human or moral world as Newton (Principia, 1686) had used to explore the natural or physical one.

There is a distinctively human world of:

  • perception
  • desire
  • belief
  • and the actions to which they lead
Previous to Hume, philosophers had tried to explain human difference through human capacity to REASON
Hume argues that the powers of reason are quite limited.
Hume vs Hobbes - both secular but Hobbes felt all mankind self-serving, Hume felt humans can self-regulate their desires and be altruistic, and that life can be pleasurable.
Followed philosophical tradition of John Locke
His follower Hutcheson argued a 6th sense, God-given moral sense.
Since Hume, strong 'utilitarian' tradition dominating Britain since 18th c. (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick)

OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF MORALS
Starts with the question 'do morals derive from reason or sentiment'?
pg 14 "Truth is disputable, not taste: what exists in the nature of things is the standard of our judgement; what each man feels within himself is the standard of sentiment."
Hume asks why if we judge the truth of something using our understanding, wouldn't we judge right and wrong using our reason as well?

pg 14 "The end of all moral speculations is to teach us our duty."

pg 15 "What is honourable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it."

pg 15 "...I am apt to suspect [...] that reason and sentiment concur in almost all moral determinations and conclusions."

App I
One foundation of moral judgement is the "usefulness" of a quality or action.  This requires reason.
Opposite interests may occur - especially with justice, law.
Sentiment also enters in "a feeling for the happiness of mankind, and a resentment of their misery."
I'm not sure this applies universally during disasters - while some people (I hope the majority) step up and want to help and will sacrifice to help others, a proportion of people see opportunity - those who bought up all the generators and water during Hurricane Katrina and recently with Superstorm Sandy and then sold them to the desperately needy at vastly inflated prices.

Virtue is "whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary"

pg 16 "reject every system of ethics [...] which is not founded on fact and observation".


OF BENEVOLENCE

OF JUSTICE
Discusses that if we lived where any and all our needs were abundantly satisfied, we wouldn't need laws as there would be no need to designate ownership or equal distribution etc.  Similarly, if there is extreme deprivation and need (such as to threaten survival) then laws of justice can and are usually suspended or take a precedence behind what is necessary to survive.  pg 22-23
It's interesting to think of this latter supposition in light of the Geneva convention and the various terrorist and similar situations we are facing in the world today.  The democracies are struggling to fight against other cultures or countries but not descend to their "anything goes" tactics.  Hence the debates in Western democracies about the use of torture to extract information that might keep the West safe, or about turning enemy prisoners over to the enemy (where they will possibly face torture or death).  It's a tangled tightrope to try and maneuver along.

To what degree do you suspend your societal morals and rules to counteract or defend yourself against a group/state that doesn't adhere to common rules?
pg 24 "By rendering justice totally useless, you thereby totally destroy its essence, and suspend its obligations upon mankind."

pg 25-26 - Hume speaks about the relationship between mankind and animals (animals being of such "inferior strength, both of body and mind").
Hume says that "we should be bound, by the laws of humanity, to give gentle usage to these creatures, but should not, properly speaking, lie under any restraint of justice with regard to them, nor could they possess any right or property, exclusive of such arbitrary lords.  Our intercourse with them could not be called society, which supposes a degree of equality; but absolute command on the one side, and servile obedience on the other.  Whatever we covet, they must instantly resign: our permission is the only tenure, by which they hold their possessions: Our compassion and kindness the only check, by which they curb our lawless will.: And no inconvenience ever results from the exercise of a power, so firmly established in nature, the restraints of justice and property, being totally useless, would never have place in so unequal a confederacy."

Hume says that this inequality is "plainly the situation of men with regard to animals".  He then goes on to look at the situation with Europeans and Indians (meaning aboriginal peoples not people from India), and the situation between men and women.
Between Europeans and aboriginals he states the "superiority of civilized Europeans above barbarous Indians" and says this made Europeans "throw off all restraints of justice, and even humanity, in our treatment of them."
With regard to women Hume writes "In many nations, the female sex are reduced to like slavery, and are rendered incapable of all property, in opposition to their lordly masters.  But though the males, when united, have, in all countries, bodily force sufficient to maintain this severe tyranny; yet such are the insinuation, address, and charms of their fair companions, that women are commonly able to break the confederacy, and share with the other sex in all the rights and privileges of society."

If man lived alone with no need for a society (nor need for others for reproduction), "the headlong course of the passions would be checked by no reflection on future consequences." pg 26
But as soon as you require a member of the opposite sex for propagation then you end up with a family unit and then require some rules to co-exist together.  He follows that to the mutual cooperation of several families (Scottish clans come to my mind) and then to relations between states etc.

pg 27  "The good of mankind is the only object of all these laws and regulations."
Hume goes on to speak about equality saying that this would be a "pernicious" situation, partly because the variations in individuals (work ethic, intelligence, ambition etc) would quickly lead to inequalities and if you try and stamp on this you end up with tyranny.  Also if you try and impose equality (by suppressing individual "virtues" that lead to individual improvements due to man's "art or industry") then society as a whole is weakened and poorer (which makes me think of various Communist states: Cuba, China, USSR).  Rewarding improvements due to man's "art or industry" encourages these useful habits.
pg 28
"The safety of the people is the supreme law"
He also writes about situations where the interests of society may not be enough to distinguish between several rules, equally beneficial.  He then speaks about using analogies to decide, citing possession as a prevailing factor for ownership/property ("where no body else has any preceding claim and pretension.)
Hume also refers to Father Malebranche (whom I saw a reference to in an earlier text we read) and L'Esprit des Loix" 

Hume (pg 30) condemns religious laws and prohibitions as to food, apparel, days etc (such as it being sinful to eat certain foods, or eat them on certain days, or to consecrate and deconsecrate places etc), calling them superstitions.  I have to agree with him and with respect to foods, this has created much inhumanity in the treatment of animals (such as halal, or the kosher slaughter laws requiring the animal be conscious when killed).  He asks are qualifications or categorizations made by civil laws and regulations any more legitimate than those made by religious decree?

OF POLITICAL SOCIETY
Hume speaks about gender differences in this section as well.
pg 36.  He writes that "infidelity [...] is much more pernicious in women than in men.  Hence the laws of chastity are much stricter over the one sex than over the other."  This archaic distinction still holds true in the 21st century whether insidiously in Western society or more overtly and more entrenched in societal laws in Middle Eastern and Eastern societies (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh etc).

He also mentions the laws against incest, found in most societies though relaxed in some (Athens) or Rome.  He also refers to the Court (or Parliament of Love) in Provence which a brief internet search informs me was a court that developed in Provence, most associated with Eleanor of Aquitaine and with some connection to the troubadours.  This is already a region whose history interests me, along with Languedoc-Rousillon where I spent 2 months just north of Nimes in 2011.


WHY UTILITY PLEASES
Hume writes about the universality of approval of "virtuous" actions or qualities even in the abstract, meaning when they don't directly benefit us.  Though Hume considers this is NOT due to being able to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, I think that the approval or warm feelings we experience when being told about examples of altruism are due to a general reassurance of humankind's basic goodness, which makes us feel more secure about the society we ourselves live in.  For example when I hear about someone doing a good deed or being honest (a teenager returning someone's lost cash) I think it makes me feel good at some level because I feel reassured that the younger generation is NOT that different from my generation and so there is hope for society amongst all the stories about entitlement and self-interest and imputed generational loss of qualities such as loyalty, work-ethic, respect for the truth etc.  Similarly when you hear stories about good deeds, or about people who have experienced injustice being forgiving or understanding, it reassures us that other parts of the world, or other cultures that may seem very foreign and different, value basic qualities that we value, or that one's society/culture values.

OF QUALITIES USEFUL TO OURSELVES
According to Hume, the most useful quality for any useful enterprise is 'discretion'. pg 53
He refers back to a section in Machiavelli's The Prince, where Machiavelli comments on how people succeed or fail depending on whether their genius (Machiavelli termed it in the translation I read as "mode of procedure") matches with the situation at the time.  This is one of the few sections of The Prince that I found pertinent.
Hume notes that "He is happy whose circumstances suit his temperament; but he is more excellent who can suit his temper to any circumstances."

In this section, Hume again comments on women and chastity, writing "The greatest regard, which can be acquired by that sex [women], is derived from their fidelity; and a woman becomes cheap and vulgar, loses her rank, and is exposed to every insult, who is deficient in this particular. The smallest failure here is sufficient to blast her character.  A female has so many opportunities of secretly indulging these appetites, that nothing can give us security but her absolute modesty and reserve; and where a breach is once made, it can scarcely ever be fully repaired." pg 54

Hmmphh.

For Hume the most damaging and incapacitating, most intolerable quality is foolishness.

In part II of this section Hume discusses the issue of physical beauty, noting that the "ancient moralists" supposed it similar to beauty of the mind.  That 'value' judgement always irked me in Plato/Socrates.  Hume also mentions esteem arising from circumstance or "the goods of fortune".

OF QUALITIES IMMEDIATELY AGREEABLE TO OURSELVES
Cheerfulness
Magnanimity (Greatness of Mind, Dignity of Character); self-esteem
Courage
Tranquility (related to Magnanimity & Greatness of Mind)
Benevolence
Delicacy of Taste (not sure this holds much currency in the 2012 world of reality TV, tabloids, gore-films, the cult of celebrity, sadly)

OF QUALITIES IMMEDIATELY AGREEABLE TO OTHERS
The rules of good manners or politeness, again sadly much less-esteemed in our culture today.
Wit
Ingenuity
Hume's contention that metaphysics might be used to explain various kinds of wit reminds me of EB White's saying that humour is like a frog.  It's possible to dissect it but the frog tends to die in the process.
Modesty (about one's good qualities)
Decency
Cleanliness
Manner (I would call this graciousness, maybe mixed with some self-confidence and kindness)

In his conclusion Hume condemns the "monkish virtues" or actions: celibacy, solitude, penance and goes so far as to include them in the category of vices. pg 74
Hume considers that "morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind".

pg 78-79
"Personal Merit  consists entirely from the usefulness or agreeableness of qualities to the person himself possessed of them, or to others, who have any intercourse with them."
It's hard to not want to like a philosophy that encompasses "gentleness, humanity, beneficence, affability; nay even, at proper intervals, play, frolic, and gaiety. She talks not of useless austerities and rigours, suffering and self-denial."
"The sole trouble, which she demands, is that of just calculation, and a steady preference of the greater happiness". (planning & deferred pleasures when necessary)

pg 81  Regarding "honesty is the best policy", Hume remarks that "he [...] conducts himself with most wisdom, who observes the general rule, and takes advantage of all the exceptions."

pg 82 "Inward peace of mind, consciousness of integrity, a satisfactory review of our own conduct; these are circumstances very requisite to happiness[...]"

Appendix I, II
"difference between a mistake of fact and one of right.
"Nothing remains but to feel, on our part, some sentiment of blame or approbation; whence we pronounce the action criminal or virtuous."

V. "[...] the ultimate ends of human actions can never [...] be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties."
"the distinct boundaries and offices of reason and of taste [...]. The former conveys the knowledge of truth and falsehood: The latter gives the sentiment of beauty and deformity, vice and virtue."

Appendix II OF SELF-LOVE
Some think that all benevolence is hypocrisy, friendship a cheat, fidelity a snare ...
or
that "no passion is, or can be disinterested."
He discusses maternal love, care and sacrifice in animals as examples of benevolence and lack of self-interest.  This would have been pre-Darwin and so no ideas - likely - of survival of the gene pool as a drive.
Physical and mental passions, appetites (food, sex, fame, power, vengeance).

Appendix III, SOME FARTHER CONSIDERATIONS WITH REGARD TO JUSTICE
Natural sympathy or benevolence, much like Mencius' child crawling towards a well.
Social virtues of justice or fidelity

"Even the general laws of the universe, though planned by infinite wisdom ____"
Where does this infinite wisdom come from?  Nature? God?
social union
confederacy among men
use of precedents in law ("a former decision, though given itself without any sufficient reason, justly becomes a sufficient reason for a new decision."
analogical reasonings and comparisons"

Appendix VI - SOME VERBAL DISPUTES
talents vs virtues, defects vs vices
socil, intellectual, moral
"perfidy more than punic" pg 104

No comments:

Post a Comment