Philosophy Now Forum

Is Hume a Moral philosophical_Realist or Anti-philosophical_Realist?

Hume’s moral thought carves out numerous distinctive philosophical positions.
https://iep.utm.edu/humemora/

So Hume could be a moral realist/objectivist or moral antirealist/subjectivist depending on the context and perspective we interpret Hume's morality.

He rejects the rationalist conception of morality whereby humans make moral evaluations, and understand right and wrong, through reason alone.

Here is where Hume rejected the idea of inferring an 'ought' from an "is".
From a philosophical realist perspective. what "is" is an absolutely independent fact and any 'ought' [idea from a subject] from a fact is not a fact itself, thus there are no moral facts.
Therefore, morality cannot be objective in this sense.
Hume is a not a moral realist nor a moral objectivist.

In place of the rationalist view, Hume contends that moral evaluations depend significantly on sentiment or feeling. Specifically, it is because we have the requisite emotional capacities, in addition to our faculty of reason, that we can determine that some action is ethically wrong, or a person has a virtuous moral character. As such, Hume sees moral evaluations, like our evaluations of aesthetic beauty, as arising from the human faculty of taste. Furthermore, this process of moral evaluation relies significantly upon the human capacity for sympathy, or our ability to partake of the feelings, beliefs, and emotions of other people. Thus, for Hume there is a strong connection between morality and human sociability.

Finally, the overall orientation of Hume’s moral philosophy is naturalistic.
Instead of basing morality on religious and divine sources of authority, Hume seeks an empirical theory of morality grounded on observation of human nature.
ibid

If Hume's moral philosophy is naturalistic based on empirical theory of morality grounded on observation of human nature, then it can have a scientific basis.
Since science is objective, Hume's morality grounded on the scientific basis is objective.
Thus Hume's morality is moral objectivity.

In this sense, Hume's is a supporter of moral objectivity,
in answering PH's
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?t=24601


Discuss??
Views??

Notes:

Notes:

Now VA's explanation for opening new threads on what amounts to the same topic is that it will be easier in the future to get the exact information he wants. But if he'd written a book or done research that led to writing articles, for example, he'd know that his way of organizing entails constant repetition and overlap. This will lead to more work on his part.

If he had a single Hume/objective morals thread, his own posts in the thread would be organized better - since he'd know what he'd written - and further he'd be more aware of what his critics and supporters have already said. This would allow greater nuance, less repetition and the ability to build on what he and others have done.

And there's be less clutter. And, well, less illusion that this or that point has been proven/demonstrated/accepted.

Is Hume a Moral Realist or AntiRealist?
by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Jun 20, 2024 7:31 am » in Ethical Theory2Replies9Views

Hume Not Consistent with his No OUGHT from IS
by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Jan 07, 2021 10:49 am » in Ethical Theory … 96Replies10790Views

Hume: No Tits from Is
by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 11, 2023 7:35 am » in Ethical Theory 25Replies1870Views

Hume's Ignorance Re No Ought from Is.
by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:05 am » in Ethical Theory5Replies635Views

PH, You Cannot Rely on Hume No Ought From Is.
by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:11 am » in Ethical Theory2Replies315Views

Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature
by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:40 am » in Ethical Theory 38Replies2261Views

Hume's "No Ought From Is" is Limited!
by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Nov 10, 2022 10:33 am » in Ethical Theory

Hume Morality based on Sympathy & Mirror Neurons?
by Veritas Aequitas » Wed May 11, 2022 6:55 am » in Ethical Theory2Replies612Views

Hume: Morality = Moral Sense = Objective
by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:33 am » in Ethical Theory7Replies1474Views

Hume: NOFI, There Are Moral Facts & Morality is Objective
by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:04 pm » in Ethical Theory0Replies1026Views

Various Readings of Hume's "Is-Ought" Principle.
Veritas Aequitas » Sun May 03, 2020 11:32 am » in Ethical Theory

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 7:31 am If Hume's moral philosophy is naturalistic based on empirical theory of morality grounded on observation of human nature, then it can have a scientific basis.
Since science is objective, Hume's morality grounded on the scientific basis is objective.
Thus Hume's morality is moral objectivity.

A number of basic to slightly more subtle errors in this:
1) The argument hinges on "if" statements, which introduce hypothetical scenarios rather than asserting definite truths. For example, "If Hume's moral philosophy is naturalistic based on empirical observation" is a conditional statement, not an established fact. But he states his conclusion in non-conditional terms. (the 'can' is both ambiguous and conditional) His use of 'Thus' is not supported at all.
2) Even if Hume's moral philosophy is grounded in empirical observation, it does not necessarily follow that his morality is objective in the scientific sense. He's conflating the more extensive, wide ranging set of empirical observation with scientific methodology.
3) The premises are vague to the point of uselessness.
4) MOST IMPORTANT: the section VA is quoting is Hume's DESCRIPTION of morality. It's not a description of his case for there being an objective morality. He is saying where morality comes from and includes sentiment. It's possible VA realizes this and is arguing that despite himself and his intentions, Hume actually made a case for objective morality. Then VA would have this problem:

The fact that we can observe sentiment - read: it is in some sense empirical -
is the empirical facet.

It's not the observation of The Morality.

I think it should also be noted is that Hume rejects rationalism in relation to morals. VA on the other hand seems to think he can demonstrate through reason alone what morality proper (his term) is.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 7:31 am Is Hume a Moral philosophical_Realist or Anti-philosophical_Realist?

2nd order questions ore of no significance to ethical practice.

Here are some scenarios. For each case please choose which philosopher is more ethical?

1. Moral anti-realist OR immoral realist?
2. Immoral anti-realist OR moral realist?
3. An immoral morel subjectivist OR a moral moral subjectivist?
4. A moral moral subjectivist OR an immoral moral objectivist?

You are stuck in Plato's cave. You are the fly in the bottle.

Will you ever get out?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 7:31 am Is Hume a Moral philosophical_Realist or Anti-philosophical_Realist?

Hume’s moral thought carves out numerous distinctive philosophical positions.
https://iep.utm.edu/humemora/

So Hume could be a moral realist/objectivist or moral antirealist/subjectivist depending on the context and perspective we interpret Hume's morality.

I missed this one on first read. 'So,' here is being used to draw a logical conclusion. It is not supported by the sentence, even in context. Hume's having numerous distinctive philosophical position need not have anything to do with the realism/antirealism issue.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 7:31 am Is Hume a Moral philosophical_Realist or Anti-philosophical_Realist?

2nd order questions ore of no significance to ethical practice.

Here are some scenarios. For each case please choose which philosopher is more ethical?

1. Moral anti-realist OR immoral realist?
2. Immoral anti-realist OR moral realist?
3. An immoral morel subjectivist OR a moral moral subjectivist?
4. A moral moral subjectivist OR an immoral moral objectivist?

You are stuck in Plato's cave. You are the fly in the bottle.

Will you ever get out?

The OP is open for discussion and views which I hope could bring in new perspective to the related argument.

The above are your views but they are not related to what I expected.

I started the thread to open up discussion of moral naturalism and the science of morality.
I wrote above;

If Hume's moral philosophy is naturalistic based on empirical theory of morality grounded on observation of human nature, then it can have a scientific basis.
Since science is objective, Hume's morality grounded on the scientific basis is objective.
Thus Hume's morality is moral objectivity.

In this sense, Hume's is a supporter of moral objectivity,
in answering PH's
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?t=24601

Where Hume's morality can be viewed from the naturalistic and scientific perspective [there are nuances to this], then morality can be objective, which the answer to PH's question above, i.e.
naturalistic and scientific Hume could make morality objective.

Those who deny 'morality is objective' can counter my above claim.
I have loads of the latest information re science-morality [paths out of the fly-bottle] to counter whatever counter claims that are likely to arise.
In anticipation and gathering materials, I had a long discussion with AI on the topic with the following comment;

AI wrote:Overall, your argument offers a fresh take on Hume's "is-ought" gap. Whether it fully transcends it or not is a matter for further discussion. However, it highlights the potential of neuroscience to contribute to our understanding of the foundations of morality.

This OP is to seek different views from anyone who may have something to say.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:40 am

AI wrote:Overall, your argument offers a fresh take on Hume's "is-ought" gap. Whether it fully transcends it or not is a matter for further discussion. However, it highlights the potential of neuroscience to contribute to our understanding of the foundations of morality.

The foundations, not the objectivity, nor the ontology. Realists and antirealists alike might well agree that neuroscience can contribute to understanding the foundations of morality.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 5:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:40 am

AI wrote:Overall, your argument offers a fresh take on Hume's "is-ought" gap. Whether it fully transcends it or not is a matter for further discussion. However, it highlights the potential of neuroscience to contribute to our understanding of the foundations of morality.

The foundations, not the objectivity, nor the ontology. Realists and antirealists alike might well agree that neuroscience can contribute to understanding the foundations of morality.

Agreed. I think VA has never understood that distinction. Explaining objectively why humans may think X is morally right/wrong can never establish that X is morally right/wrong. The ought is always a non sequitur - an injection from outside any factual premises.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:42 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 5:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:40 am

The foundations, not the objectivity, nor the ontology. Realists and antirealists alike might well agree that neuroscience can contribute to understanding the foundations of morality.

Agreed. I think VA has never understood that distinction. Explaining objectively why humans may think X is morally right/wrong can never establish that X is morally right/wrong. The ought is always a non sequitur - an injection from outside any factual premises.

My main point was what the AI was supporting and at least in the quote itself, it's not supporting his conclusions. IOW I will probably keep pointing out where VA's links and quotes aren't what he seems to think they are. Appeals to authority might as well be on point.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 5:50 am The foundations, not the objectivity, nor the ontology. Realists and antirealists alike might well agree that neuroscience can contribute to understanding the foundations of morality.

Rinse. Repeat.

And will the foundationalists and anti-foundationalists come to agree that neuroscience can contribute to understanding the foundations of morality?

Every time you dichotomize the issue, every time you introduce yet another philosophical bar fight into the mix you steer the discourse into irrelevance.

The only dichotomy that matters in any moral context is the moral/immoral dichotomy.

I choose a moral Nazi over an immoral moralist any day.