tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6886494175556121233..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Should Questions and Reasons for ActionAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66215622436737846462011-05-10T09:56:57.025-06:002011-05-10T09:56:57.025-06:00Yes, Hume can be read as a realist or an anti-real...Yes, Hume can be read as a realist or an anti-realist.<br /><br />I think that it is probably more accurate to say that Hume is inconsistent on this matter.<br /><br />On the is-ought distinction, he holds that with respect to such an inference "a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable". He also says that to make moral judgments we see nothing in the object itself but we turn our attention inward to our own sentiments.<br /><br /><i>Take any action allowed 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 never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action.</i><br /><br />Both of these I hold to be false.<br /><br />At the same time, Hume says that desires (or sentiments) are facts from which moral claims can be derived. In the quite above, he says that there is no <b>OTHER</b> matter of fact but the passions. And he begins the next sentence after this with:<br /><br /><i>Here is a matter of fact, but it is the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. </i><br /><br />So, is Hume saying that we can derive values from facts - "should" from "desires" (or "sentiments") which, after all, are just as real as planets, rocks, and people?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5978656193703176102011-05-10T09:03:58.053-06:002011-05-10T09:03:58.053-06:00J.W Gray
1. Hume can also be read as a realist.
2...J.W Gray<br /><br />1. Hume can also be read as a realist.<br />2. Hume says that an argument must be made to derive "ought" from "is" and he himself makes such an argument in his writings. He criticizes those who just assume given "is" that "ought" follows without any provided argument.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8204272173013231902011-05-10T05:30:24.561-06:002011-05-10T05:30:24.561-06:00J.W. Gray
Hume says it is impossible to derive &#...<b>J.W. Gray</b><br /><br />Hume says it is impossible to derive 'ought' from 'is'. I say that 'ought' is not fact, then it is fiction.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30072602555626108242011-05-10T04:35:50.617-06:002011-05-10T04:35:50.617-06:00Isn't your argument almost exactly the same as...Isn't your argument almost exactly the same as Hume's? Why do you insist that moral realism is true when Hume seems like a clear example of an anti-realist?J. W. Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11067571798078607263noreply@blogger.com