David Hume’s Moral Skepticism – Philosophy Essay
David Hume’s moral skepticism concluded that an individual’s morals are matters of their feelings about the fact, resulted from ones own experience. This was Hume’s empiricist method. Hume’s argument shifted
philosophy in general from the norm to a radical point of view. Hume believed that the materials of thinking, our perceptions, are derived either two categories our ideads and our impressions. After reviewing Hume’s argument one can conclude that facts have no impact on a individual’s actions and morality never consists in any single matter of fact that could be perceived by reason alone.
Today astonishing achievements in biomedical science and technology have led to an amazing ability to harvest stem cells. The debate over this issue is that of abortion. The opposition of stem cell research argues that the embryo is being destroyed during this process. This issue is one of our society’s morals. It is a promising area of research that can ultimately lead to the cure of many diseases. But why is it immoral to explore a process that can heal individuals suffering from such conditions as diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Hume had argued that an individual’s “sentiments and affections,” not reason, is what leads us our actions. One can conclude that this stem cell research is moral because of their feelings about the subject. Not how they “ought” to feel about it, but how they really feel about it. The feelings associated with certain facts change from person to person. One may favor this research because they have personally been affected by it. Society says how we ought to feel about something and it is subjects that encounter this issue will reason it immoral because they have never had previous experience with it.
So an individual who supports stem cell research had deemed it moral because his reason gave way to his “sentiment and affections.” Hume creates a point in that an individual ought to feel a certain way about something but they really feel different due to the impact of our feelings. It is our preception of the subject that creates a division amoung our people.
I agree with Hume in that facts are neutral in determining an action. Somone can know all the facts about this issue but until they experience it personally they will continue to denouce stem cell research as immoral. Yet, when they experience first hand the outcomes and benefits of it their feelings will overpower their reason.
In contrast to David Hume, Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of categorical imperative argued that the individuals are able to make decisions free from ourside forces. We have a free will which acts under the laws of itself. According to Kant, in each of us there is a noumenal reality, and a phenomental reality. The noumenal reality is that of which is unexplainable and unknown. It is everything the mind cannot explain, like an individual calculating how long they will live. It is just not possible, one can only The phenomental reality is that in which is known, or experienced. It is the natural world in which we live in. For instance, like how many days are in a week. The individual knows because they personally experience it weekly.
Moral law of our own will means that we are able to make decisions by themselves and freely. To be subject to moral law of our own will is to question yourself whether or not the subject matter is ultimately good or bad. It is a point in which you decide that something is bad and you will not condem it. For instance, road rage results in many individuals raising the middle finger, but one may be subjected to their own moral law and decide it imoral to conduct such behavior. Moral law from an external source is those laws in which we are subject to by outside forces. It can be one’s society, religion, or family that pronouce what is right and wrong. For example, in the Jewish faith, tattoos are frowned apon. So if the individual wishes to remain a good jew, then they will condem tattoos.
Kant emphasized the way in which the moral life was centered on duty. He believed that duties are created by rules or laws of some sort. For example the laws of a club lay down duties for its officers or city and state laws establish the duties of citizens. So when the subjects of these legislators do something because it is because of their duty to do so. The motivation we have for these duties comes from our own will to do so, if one wished not to conform to the laws, then one can choose not be be part of that city, state, or organization. Kant looks to the motives to see if the motive has true moral worth or not. He does not determine the moral worth on the consequences of an action. According to Kant, if a person is motivated purely by the good will, then does the motive have true moral worth? If the motive of doing inclinations, then the motive does not have true moral worth, even if such a motive brings about happiness for others. Kant isn’t concerned about the consequences of whether your actions bring happiness or not. The problem with motives is that they are always changing. They are never absolute or constant feelings, emotions, or desires. The answer to the question on why there is so much violence and hate in the world is because people’s incentives or motives are based on desires and self-interest and NOT on the good will. So therefore inclinations cannot be relied on for making moral decisions.
"Hume alitoa maoni yake ya kwanza kuhusu ""kila kitu"" katika kitabu chake cha Philosophy Essay, ambapo alisema kwamba ""maadili ya mtu ni mambo ya hisia zake kuhusu ukweli, kutokana na uzoefu wake mwenyewe.""" Hii ilikuwa mbinu ya Hume ya empiricist. Hoja ya Hume ilibadilisha falsafa kwa ujumla kutoka kwa kanuni hadi kwa mtazamo wa kimapinduzi. Hume aliamini kwamba vitu vya kufikiri, hisia zetu, zinatokana na makundi mawili: mawazo yetu na hisia zetu. Baada ya kuchunguza hoja ya Hume, mtu anaweza kuhitimisha kwamba ukweli hauna athari kwa vitendo vya mtu binafsi na maadili hayawezi kuwa na suala lolote la ukweli ambalo linaweza kutambuliwa na sababu pekee. Mafanikio makubwa katika sayansi na teknolojia ya biomedical yametokeza uwezo wa ajabu wa kuvuna seli za msingi. Mjadala juu ya suala hili ni ule wa utoaji mimba. Upinzani wa utafiti wa chembe za msingi husema kwamba kiinitete kinaharibiwa wakati wa mchakato huu. Suala hili ni moja ya maadili ya jamii yetu. Ni eneo lenye kuahidi la utafiti ambalo hatimaye laweza kusababisha tiba ya magonjwa mengi. Lakini kwa nini ni kinyume cha maadili kuchunguza mchakato ambao unaweza kuponya watu wanaoteseka kutokana na hali kama vile kisukari, Alzheimer's na Parkinson's. Hume alikuwa amedai kwamba hisia na hisia za mtu binafsi, sio sababu, ndizo zinazotuongoza katika vitendo vyetu. Mtu aweza kuhitimisha kwamba utafiti huu wa chembe za msingi ni wa maadili kwa sababu ya hisia zao kuhusu jambo hilo. Si jinsi wanavyopaswa kuhisi kuhusu jambo hilo, bali jinsi wanavyohisi kweli kuhusu jambo hilo. Hisia zinazohusiana na mambo fulani hutofautiana kutoka mtu mmoja hadi mwingine. Mtu aweza kupendelea utafiti huu kwa sababu wao wenyewe wameathiriwa na huo. Jamii inasema jinsi tunapaswa kuhisi juu ya kitu na ni masomo ambayo hukutana na suala hili yatasababisha kuwa isiyo ya maadili kwa sababu hawajawahi kuwa na uzoefu wa awali na hilo. "Hume aliandika kwamba ""mtu anayeheshimu utafiti wa seli za shina aliona kuwa ni wa maadili kwa sababu sababu yake ilitoa njia kwa hisia zake na hisia zake.""Hume aliandika kwamba mtu anapaswa kuhisi kwa njia fulani kuhusu kitu fulani lakini wao kweli kuhisi tofauti kutokana na athari ya hisia zetu." Ni maoni yetu ya somo hilo ambayo huunda mgawanyiko kati ya watu wetu. Ninakubaliana na Hume kwamba mambo ya hakika hayana uhusiano wowote na uamuzi wa mtu. Mtu anaweza kujua ukweli wote kuhusu suala hili lakini mpaka watakapopata uzoefu binafsi wataendelea kukataa utafiti wa seli za msingi kama kinyume cha maadili. Hata hivyo, wanapokutana na matokeo na manufaa ya zoea hilo, hisia zao huathiri akili zao. Kinyume na David Hume, falsafa ya Immanuel Kant ya amri ya kikamilifu ilisema kwamba watu binafsi wanaweza kufanya maamuzi huru kutoka kwa nguvu zetu. Tuna hiari ambayo hufanya kazi chini ya sheria zake mwenyewe. Kulingana na Kant, katika kila mmoja wetu kuna ukweli wa noumenal, na ukweli wa phenomenal. Ukweli wa noumenal ni kwamba ya ambayo ni unexplainable na haijulikani. Ni kila kitu ambacho akili haiwezi kueleza, kama mtu anayehesabu muda gani ataishi. Ni tu haiwezekani, mtu anaweza tu The phenomenal ukweli ni kwamba katika ambayo ni inayojulikana, au uzoefu. Ni ulimwengu wa asili ambao tunaishi. Kwa mfano, ni siku ngapi katika wiki? Mtu huyo anajua kwa sababu yeye mwenyewe hujionea jambo hilo kila juma. Sheria ya maadili ya mapenzi yetu wenyewe inamaanisha kwamba tuna uwezo wa kufanya maamuzi wenyewe na kwa uhuru. Kujiweka chini ya sheria ya maadili kwa mapenzi yetu wenyewe ni kujiuliza kama jambo hilo ni zuri au baya. Ni hatua ambayo unaamua kwamba kitu ni mbaya na huwezi kukihukumu. Kwa mfano, hasira ya barabarani husababisha watu wengi kuinua kidole cha kati, lakini mtu anaweza kuwa chini ya sheria yake mwenyewe ya maadili na kuamua ni kinyume cha maadili kufanya tabia kama hiyo. Sheria ya maadili kutoka kwa chanzo cha nje ni sheria ambazo tunatawaliwa na nguvu za nje. Inaweza kuwa jamii, dini, au familia ya mtu inayotangaza yaliyo sawa na yaliyo makosa. Kwa mfano, katika dini ya Kiyahudi, watu huchukia sana kupiga tatoo. Kwa hiyo ikiwa mtu huyo anataka kubaki Myahudi mwema, basi watalaani michoro. Kant alikazia jinsi maisha ya kiadili yalivyotegemea wajibu. Aliamini kwamba wajibu huundwa na sheria au sheria za aina fulani. Kwa mfano sheria za klabu huweka wajibu kwa maafisa wake au sheria za jiji na jimbo huanzisha wajibu wa raia. Kwa hiyo, wakati raia wa wabunge hawa hufanya kitu kwa sababu ni kwa sababu ya wajibu wao kufanya hivyo. """Msukumo tunao kwa majukumu haya unatokana na mapenzi yetu wenyewe ya kufanya hivyo, ikiwa mtu anataka kutofuata sheria, basi mtu anaweza kuchagua kutokuwa sehemu ya mji huo, jimbo, au shirika." Kant huangalia nia ili kuona kama nia hiyo ina thamani ya kweli ya kiadili au la. Yeye haamui thamani ya kiadili juu ya matokeo ya tendo. Kulingana na Kant, ikiwa mtu anachochewa tu na nia njema, je, kichocheo hicho kina thamani ya kweli ya kiadili? Kama nia ya kufanya ni ya kupendeza, basi nia hiyo haina thamani ya kweli ya kimaadili, hata kama nia hiyo huleta furaha kwa wengine. Kant hajali kuhusu matokeo ya ikiwa vitendo vyako huleta furaha au la. Tatizo la nia ni kwamba zinabadilika-badilika daima. Hizo si hisia, hisia, au tamaa zisizo na kikomo au za kudumu. "Jibu la swali la ""kwa nini kuna vurugu na chuki nyingi duniani"" ni kwa sababu msukumo au nia ya watu ni msingi wa tamaa na maslahi ya kibinafsi na si juu ya nia nzuri." Kwa hiyo kwa hiyo mielekeo haiwezi kutegemea kwa kufanya maamuzi ya maadili.