Hume’s Epistemology and Ethics: Empiricism and Moral Emotivism
Theory of Knowledge of Hume
To begin to develop the theory of knowledge consistent with this Scottish invention, it is necessary to know David Hume. Hume was an empiricist and a good empirical basis for all his work was obtained by sensory experience. To start with, Hume formulated a theory with several epistemological principles (always based on empiricism) from which follow a series of logical consequences (here are the most important):
1. Empiricism: Our thought is reduced to very narrow limits, and all materials of thought are derived from our perception (internal or external). So, reason is not capable of generating an original idea.
2. Principle of Immanence: In the mind, there is nothing else but perceptions, evidently transmitted by the senses. These perceptions are of two types:
- Impressions (intense perceptions such as hearing, seeing, loving, hating)
- Ideas (less intense, because they are more distant from the senses)
3. Copy Principle: All our ideas are copies of impressions we have, which means they correspond to some emotions and respect. Therefore, there are no innate ideas.
4. Association of Ideas: The mixture of ideas that imagination exists in our mind, but there are some attractions that relate to each other, following three rules: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect.
5. Nominalism (William of Ockham): Denial of the existence of universal, general, and abstract ideas, and that all ideas are specific and linked to a general term.
Once the principles based on his empiricism are developed, we say that, according to the Scotsman, only with impression and memory do we ensure the reality of the present and the past. Therefore, the problem arises of how we can predict the future. There are obvious plots of future events, but what evidence is this based on? (If the hand is put in the fire, it burns). First, all our arguments about matters of fact seem to be based on the relation of cause and effect. But both cause and effect cannot be discovered through reason but through experience. All arguments are founded on experience based on similarity observed in natural objects, making us think that what we have seen will follow the same pattern. Thus, we get the usual, which is the way forward for life. Practice leads us to the belief that the same event will be repeated. Here, we identify those narrow limits we were talking about earlier. Therefore, we cannot have rational certainty on questions of fact, but only belief. These findings led Hume to adopt the so-called moderate skepticism. There is a skepticism prior to the events, but this skepticism is based on the analysis of our human faculties.
Hume’s Ethical Theory
To develop the ethical theory consistent with this Scottish invention, namely David Hume, he was an empiricist and a good empirical basis for all his work was obtained by sensory experience. This ethical theory served him to show that moral experience is not found in reason, but in the sense that people’s actions cause in ourselves. This theory is called moral emotivism and opposes moral intellectualism, which, if we remember, affirms that the condition for correct moral behavior is knowledge. Emotivism opens a large field and approaches the current opinion, and it takes into account the large scope of feelings and emotions. For Hume, the existence of morality is taken as a matter of fact. All of us make distinctions and each of us is considerably affected by what is right and what is wrong, but it certainly begins when we ask about the rationale for such moral distinctions. Hume takes care to criticize moral rationalism and clearly presents the ideas of his emotivist theory. He proposes that reason is of moral importance and that the qualities we consider good are those that have utility and therefore bring benefit to themselves. Reason helps us to determine which consequences are useful, but this is not enough. Reason cannot be the source of morality. There are only two operations of the understanding, the two modes by which the reasonable thing can be achieved: the knowledge of fact and the relation of ideas, but none of them allows us to get ideas about good and bad. Good and bad cannot be considered moral properties of an object; they only appear as a feeling of approval or disapproval of the events. A case (how well you did) cannot be owned by right or wrong; we perceive only one object. Evil or goodness cannot be perceived with the senses. For example, if we see a murder scene, we see blood, signs of violence in the anatomy of the victim, broken items, etc., but we see no evil or goodness. Therefore, Hume says it is necessary to know all the objects and their relations before giving a sentence of censure or approval. Then, morality is concerned with the duty to be (not to be), and aims to describe what should be, and get a moral from the observation and analysis of the facts. Well, if morality is not a matter of fact, we are left with only the possibility of an understanding of the relationship of ideas. We find these relationships both in material things, in ourselves, in actions, passions, etc. In this case, we consider good and bad in the same way in both the human and the action of nature of irrational beings (which is not what we do). Similar relationships exist to arouse in us, but they have no influence on morality. As said before, reason cannot distinguish good from bad; of course, morality is not based on reason, it can only be based on sentiment. We consider something good or bad, not by capturing any reason or quality in the moral order, but by the feeling that the object produces. Conclusion: Assessments are not dependent on a moral view of reason, but of feeling.