Treatise of Human Nature Yet Again

In book III of this book Hume is trying to convert his truths into a discussion of morality. I will discuss the section headings and how Hume tries to explain these. Book III part 1 section 1 discusses the origin of natural virtues and vices. The authors of these philosophy books seem to find this as a necessary topic for discussion. They feel a need to explain the actions that are considered vices and those that are considered virtues. According to Hume, a vice is something that causes hatred or humility. He also says that a virtue is any quality of the mind that causes love or pride. I think what he goes on to say is that the action itself is not a part of morality. Instead, it is the though behind the actions that causes the action to be virtuous or vicious. An action alone cannot be considered in morality because it is the quality of the mind that determines someone's character. Later on in this section, Hume goes back to his view of sympathy and the relation of morals and sympathy. The next section is Book III part 1 section 2 and discusses greatness of mind. I think he titled it this to explain the comments he made in the previous section. He describes how greatness of mind must be made up of two distinct principles. The principles are sympathy and comparison. Sympathy is an innate sense of the feelings of others while comparison uses the status of another to judge our own status. He notes that comparison and sympathy are directly contrary to one another and that there are times when they act as such. An example he gives is when a person on shore witnesses a ship in a storm at sea. If the ship is far away the person will be happy that they are not on the ship, but if the ship is near enough that the person can see the horror on the face of the crew, the person will be sad. Page 381 has a discussion of pride and modesty. I am not sure I understand Hume's stance on this as he says modesty benefits others but not ourself, and vice-versa for pride. I don't know how he feels on this subject. The previous two sections seem to be from the wrong part of the book. I will continue as I have put a lot of thought into those rather than erase them from the blog. Those seem to be from part 3 of the last book, not part 1. I didn't notice, however, until I went to flip to the next part only to realize the book was over.

The actual book III part 1 section 1 is titled moral distinctions not deriv'd from reason. This section is integral to the argument of Hume. He uses it to differentiate his argument from Aristotle's. Aristotle proposes that reason can control actions but Hume's argument says otherwise. Hume says that no matter what case you look at there is no matter of fact morals. They are always caused by passions, movitve, volitions, and thoughts. These cannot be dissected with reason as they are emotional. The next section is titled Moral Distinctions Deriv'd from a Moral Sense. This is why Hume needed to disprove reason as the tool for moral distinction in the previous section. He states that moral distinctions can only be made by feelings of pleasure and pain. Part 2 section 1 discusses whether justice is a natural or artificial virtue. Hume asserts that justice is not a natural virtue but one that has arisen out of necessity from society. The next section of part 2 discusses both justice and property. His discussion of property explains that the wants and needs of mankind do not fit with the niche that man was given by nature. This is how he leads into the artificial virtues. He explains that some things were not given to man by nature and these are the things that we must hold as virtues in order for man to prosper in the world. Sections 3 and 4 discuss property and the rules that Hume holds to be truth. He explains the meaning of property and its relevance to his argument and how it relates to society. Section 5 talks about promises. I think that this makes more sense to a book about ethics than does property. Hume states that promises are not natural virtues and this is because they were created by human convention and not nature. Section 6 brings us back to the virtuousity of justice and how it relates to injustice. I would ask Hume how he felt about society, is it necessary? Are artificial virtues worth the same as natural virtues?

Treatise to Human Nature Continued

Hume makes it a point to note many times that "reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will: and secondly, that it can never oppose passion in the direction of the will." He is trying to explain that his point of view hinges on this relationship between reason and passion. Hume proposes that all actions made by people are dependent upon their passions. He explains that reason can try to persuade the passions but can neither cause an action nor prevent passion from creating an action. There are things known as calm passions that can be mistaken for reason. In fact, Hume states on page 268 "when any of these passions are calm, and cause no disorder in the soul, they are very readily taken for the determinations of reason." Hume says that such passions are confused for reasons because they coincide with what should be done in a situation. The passions of the person fit with the ideas of what is appropriate. Hume discusses violent emotions on page 268. Here he states that during these times of violent passion a person will often do something independent of the pleasures of the person. I think he is trying to point out times when a person does something in an emotional state that later they regret.

People in the 21st century that support the beliefs of Hume could cite specific examples to prove their belief. One example would be when a couple is fighting. Often, there are things said in an argument that can ruin a relationship that would not have been said in an unemotional state. This exemplifies Hume's violent passion. I think an example of Hume's calm passion would be donating money to another person in need. This seems like reason because the other person is in need but Hume would describe it as a passion. I think another good example of a violent passion would be homocide. These people wind up hurting themself by going to jail, but their passion to injur someone who hurt them won out.

page 266
There is a passage at the bottom of the page that says "or more than five foot high." I don't know if this is just some kind of saying from the time period or if it is over my head (play on words).

page 273
A passage at the bottom of the page goes against all that we have learned in ethics class so far. Hume states that an argument does not have to be eloquent or accurate but just argued with passion in order to cause an end. This means that people do not need evidence to win an argument.

A Treatise of Human Nature

Hume explains what he believes to be innate tendencies of the human state. These tendencies are therefore possessed by all people. After stating that the book hinges on these tendencies, he then goes on to describe how they will affect the passions and actions of people. Hume is a firm believer that people are only concerned with things that can affect them. If something does not affect a person, he considers it irrelevant. This means that if something does not cause me pleasure or pain, I will not find it a worthwhile study. Along those same lines, Hume discusses that reason cannot overcome passion. This means that reason alone is not enough to initiate action in a person, they must be moved by their passion. I think that this shows that Hume does not believe that morals are objective. He sees that passion can seem objective to its owner, but not to a society. We will use reason to navigate our thoughts, finding passions that direct our actions, but it was not the reason that gave us morals.

Prep for Hume

According to the syllabus, Hume is going to discuss the moral views of people and how those moral views reflect what we believe to be something objective. I think he must first lay out the moral views that are common to all people if he wants to explain how our lives are affected by them. This is going to be very difficult for Hume because I think that all people do not share the same moral views. After explaining what the moral views are, he needs to explain how these moral views also affect the lives of the people that hold those views. Finally, to finish his argument according to the syllabus, he must show us how we hold these views as objective rather than subjective.

Aristotle and Doris

Both Aristotle and Doris have opinions of what makes a person virtuous and what makes a person vicious. These arguments have some overlap, but I think that they are arguing different ideas for the most part. I believe that Aristotle has a more pleasant view of society than does Doris. Aristotle believes that anyone can achieve virtuosity by following his tenets. It sounded to me that Doris had a more gray view of people, believing that people would only choose a virtuous act if the person benefit from the action in some other way as well. I may be wrong on what Doris was trying to say there but that is the feeling I got.

Aristotle just about over does the opinion that virtuous people use moderation. He expresses the idea that there is always a correct level action for every situation. When a person is knowledgeable enough to see the correct level of action, then that person is virtuous. That statement needs refinement as it is not only the knowledge of what is right that makes a person virtuous because the person also has to act according to what they know is right.

I think what Doris is trying to say is that there is no such thing as a person who is wholly virtuous or a person who is wholly vicious. He explains that many people will only act virtuously if the situation is one where a virtuous act does not hurt the person making the action. What I am trying to say is that Doris does not believe in altruism. I think he sees humans as self serving and will only make a virtuous decision if it serves them in some other way.

Aristotle and Hursthouse

From what I can understand of it, phronesis as we are calling it, is a type of wisdom. We have referred to it as practical wisdom, but I am not sure I know exactly what it means. From what I have gathered, it is like knowing what is good for yourself or group in all situations. This is different from other wisdom in that it can change with different situations. It is not always the same truth, but a truth that fits each situation. I think there are occasions in sports where practical wisdom is necessary. A good quarterback, for example, may take it upon himself to pass in a running situation if the defense is vulnerable. The quarterback may have seen some sign indicating that this would be the best choice for the situation.

Hursthouse makes use of Aristotle's views on virtue. He discusses how it can be related to abortion. The main thing I got out of his argument is that like many subjects, we cannot relegate answers to right and wrong. Instead, we must use practical wisdom to determine the best answers for each situation individually. He talks about how sometimes a woman may have been light-minded by getting an abortion. Other women, however, he says may be acting moderately by getting an abortion. I think his argument makes a lot of sense, as he is reluctant to say that all situations can fit into one mold.

I like the passage of (VI.5) I think that this passage does a good job of explaining what he means by the use of some of his terms. He tries to describe the meaning of what it is to be wise. I think even Aristotle has a hard time describing the definition of wisdom but does a good job providing examples of each type of intelligence.

The whole book was somewhat confusing, but I was unable to find a specific passage in this part that confused me more than the rest.

I think the first paragraph of the conclusion does a good job outlining the points that Hursthouse was trying to make. He was able to sum up his entire paper in a few paragraphs. I think that Hursthouse does a good job of laying out his views for the reader and comparing them to Aristotle's beliefs. I think that the paper does a good job of relating Aristotle to the present.

Random Act of Kindness

For this assignment I decided to start small. My roommates and I live in a house where dinner is usually based on a you cook it you eat it principle. We do this so people do not have to get mad about others eating their food or things of this nature. One day I had made only enough spaghetti for me to eat for dinner. I noticed that my roommate was running late for work that evening. I offered my roommate the spaghetti I made already and had to make more for myself. I think he was very appreciative of this gesture. He was able to make it to work on time whereas he may not have been without the food being pre made.

Nicomachean Ethics Continued

In this section of the text, Aristotle discusses how we can value certain characteristics. I think I understand what he is saying. He tries to tell us that in order for a characteristic to be good, it must lead to good things. Likewise, for a characteristic to be bad, it must lead to bad things. I guess what I am trying to say is that all characteristics have some ability to be either good or bad. The person who owns the characteristic can therefore determine how virtuous they are based on what they do. I feel like this leaves the person somewhat to chance, however, as we don't always know how an event will turn out when we do something. All we know is what is the best choice at present. If this is all we know, then can we really become virtuous by doing what Aristotle tells us?

Aristotle claims that becoming closer to these characteristics will help us have a fulfilling life. I agree with him for the most part. The only problem I see with his argument is I am not sure we can actually know which characteristics are virtuous and which aren't. I am not saying that people are completely ignorant, we know the basics of right and wrong. I am just trying to point out the fact that there are occasions when a person truly does not know which choice is more virtuous. If we can figure this out then I believe that we can become fulfilled by getting close to these characteristics.

Response to In Class Discussion

After class today, there are a few points that I think we needed to clear up but were unable to. First of all, I think that we needed to define happiness further in order to clarify the discussion and decide if it was truly the goal we were looking for. In addition, I believe that to satisfy the question we needed to talk about what the universal goal should look like so we could recognize it if it came up in discussion. In my opinion the universal goal not only can be unnattainable, but must be unnattainable in order to satisfy our argument. The universal goal must be unnattainable as this is what makes it universal. If any person has gained the goal, this person will have a new goal, and therefore the goal will not be universal anymore. I think this will help us determine the universal goal, or at least rule out some goals that are not universal.

Prep for Aristotle

Based on what I have learned about people from personal experience, I would say there is no one goal that all humans are interested in. The goal that I believe comes closest to satisfying all people is very primeval. To every other organism, minus a minimal few, passing on the genetics of a species is the overall goal of life. I would say that this applies to most people, either noticeabley or on a subconcious level. Entrance into any open bar on a Friday or Saturday night would reveal that the primary goal of those attending is to find a suitable mate. In biology, a suitable mate is another of the same species that provides an organism with the best chance of offspring survival. The people in these bars have their own ideas as to what constitutes a suitable mate, but that is a little off topic. I think slightly more subtly, advertisements for products use this universal goal to make money. Many ads for things portray a suitable mate as a person who uses their product. Subconciously, the people watching these ads believe that if they use the product, they will be able to reach their goal of procreating.

Even though I would attest that this is a goal shared by most of humanity, I am morally objected to proposing a a method that would help others attain this goal. I believe that sadly there are already ways to attain this goal that are not ethical. Many communities have problems policing people who try to illegally attain this goal. I believe that is because unlike other crimes, these crimes originate from within the self, rather than something that has been caused by society.

Gorgias Reading Part Two

Rather than type the whole passage, as it is terribly long, I will refer any reader who wishes to look up the quotation to page 64, the middle of passage 482.

In this passage, Callicles voices his opinion of the events that took place when Socrates was addressing both Polus and Gorgias. Callicles points out what he believes to have been Polus’s mistake, just as Polus had done with Gorgias. In pointing out Polus’s fault, however, Callicles brings up another point that I find very similar to my own view of the matter. Callicles states “you pretend that truth is your goal, Socrates, but in actual fact you steer discussions towards this kind of ethical idea-ideas which are unsophisticated enough to have popular appeal, and which depend entirely on convention, not on nature.” He goes on to express how there is naturally going to be a contradiction between nature and convention, stating that Socrates has devised a scheme to use this contradiction to trick his opponent in argument. I find this to be one of the more compelling arguments to this point as it is both formulated and orated well. Callicles is neither attacking Socrates nor admiring him, instead he is pointing out what he believes to be the case. I cannot say the same for some parts of Callicles’s argument as he does make a personal attack against Socrates, insinuating that he is out of touch with reality (page 67).

In the same long speech as before, Callicles also brings up what is to become one of his main points in the section. Here he addresses the fact that those who can achieve power are right and not immoral as Socrates tried to prove earlier. He discusses that through a balance of philosophy and community, a person can attain this sort of power. He also explains how society often takes the powerful and trains them as youth to become equal to those around them Callicles finds this contemptible and shows how doing this can cause a powerful person to break the ties that bind him. I think that Callicles is better grounded than the other orators that have been discussed to this point. His arguments combine rhetoric with personal views to achieve a high level of thought.

There are two sections I would like to point out that I found troublesome in regards to Socrates arguments. These take place on page 85 and page 92. On page 85, Socrates resorts to word manipulation, just as he was accused of doing by Callicles earlier in the book. On page 92, Callicles points out how he has been saying “yes on cue” to Socrates. Socrates combats this argument by again chasing Callicles into a forced assertion that Socrates’s point is correct.

Gorgias Reading Part One

On page 34, Socrates states that “rhetoric (is) a branch of flattery.” I think this is one of his core arguments in the first part of the book. This is core to his argument as Socrates finds flattery contemptible, so he accordingly finds rhetoric contemptible.

On page 40, Socrates plainly says “I mean that in actual fact there is nothing worse than doing wrong.” This argument of Socrates is more explicitly stated than his other arguments. Socrates is able to convince Polus to his point of view on this after Polus originally says he believes otherwise. Polus’s original argument was that even Socrates would envy those who could do whatever they please. The argument goes on with Polus stating that those people who do not face consequence are happy. Socrates says that this is the opposite of what actually happens. On page 47 Socrates says “that punishment alleviates their condition somewhat” when referring to criminals.

There is also a large section on page 18 that discusses the decisions made in a community. In this section, Socrates states how decisions are not made by rhetoricians, but by experts in the field concerned. I found this to be a very interesting passage as today I believe the opposite to be true. I often see politicians with little expertise in a certain field campaigning for one choice over another. This politician will often use rhetoric to gain the popular vote of the community.