Hume’s Philosophy: Enlightenment, Empiricism, and Ethics
Hume: Historical Context and Core Ideas
Hume sought a scientific view of man and the world, proclaiming confidence in progress with the intention of extending his vision so that the world could be understood. Man is in a process of improvement, and reason should guide his life. Enlightenment liberalism can be categorized as English (proclamation of the rights of individuals as natural and inalienable against state power, which no human society can prohibit) and Deism (proclamation of faith in a creator God; the world is governed by internal and necessary laws, not defending natural religion or the church). In opposition to English empiricism, rationalism posits reason as the unquestionable criterion of truth, and that reason always arrives at truth in a uniform way.
John Locke (followed by Berkeley and Hume) focused on analyzing the mechanisms of human understanding, defending that there are no innate ideas and that experience is the only criterion to ensure that human knowledge is valid. This involves studying human nature, including how man acts, his rules, his powers, his limitations, and the tools he uses. The more radical French Enlightenment attacked Christianity and defended revolution as a means to change the political system on behalf of reason, freedom, and progress. A key concept is found in Rousseau’s defense of nature, arguing that the world should return to the simplicity and goodness of nature (man is good, and it is society that corrupts him).
Kant and the German Enlightenment
Kant answered three questions: What do I know? What should I do? (Ethics), and What can I expect?
Hume’s Theory of Knowledge
Hume’s theory of knowledge can be summarized as follows:
- It waives a theoretical edge over essences, substances, causes, and necessary principles, focusing instead on reflection on the limits of human understanding.
- If the defense intends to be a science, it must meet the only valid criteria: experience and scientific observation. Reason is not autonomous because everything is based on and depends on experience.
Mental contents are reduced to impressions, perceptions, or ideas. Perceptions are sensitive units of knowledge. There are two types:
- Impressions: The immediate result of perceptions that are strong and alive (including sensations, passions, and emotions).
- Ideas: Weak copies of perceptions; there are no innate or abstract ideas.
Laws of Association of Ideas
There are certain laws governing the association of ideas:
- Similarity: Seeing a fat boy and a tall, thin man might remind one of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza.
- Contiguity: (in time and space) Singing carols and seeing champagne ads might make one think of Christmas.
- Cause-Effect: Seeing dark clouds and lightning might make one think of rain.
Groups of Ideas
Our understanding makes two groups of ideas:
- Substances: A complex package of ideas together under a single name (e.g., an apple has a certain taste, odor, color, shape, and feel).
- Ideas of Mode: More or less solid groupings or collections of features (e.g., asthma patients).
Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact
Relations of ideas arise when comparing their meaning, constituting a necessary relationship. They are invariant and have no opposite. Matters of fact appear when analysis and comparisons are made through impressions and experiences. They are variable and do have an opponent. The meaning of meaning leads to no other fact, as in physical and social sciences.
Hume’s Critique of Causality
Hume argues that we cannot prove a connection between the past and the future. The idea that things have happened in a certain way in the past does not imply that they will always happen the same way in the future. Our assumptions are not based on rational knowledge but on the habit of believing that things will always be the same because they have had the same effect in the past. Only habit tells us that a cause will still have an effect, but we need experience to prove it. Therefore, to discover how the world is, we must rely on sensitive experience and explain the limits of human reason. All our reasoning is based on experience, but there is another kind of knowledge: belief. We tend to assume that things will be equal, but we have no proof of this, as we can only know the qualities of things.
Hume’s theory of the succession of ideas states that understanding, through experience, tries to create a new edge through the law of association of ideas. Apart from ideas having a direct correlation with impressions, other contents of the mind are produced through the laws of similarity, contiguity, and cause and effect.
Critique of the Principle of Causality
The principle of causality is a pillar of science, stating that every effect has a cause. Hume questioned whether this principle is a matter of fiction or a product of understanding. For example, if we observe a causal event, such as two billiard balls colliding, we can observe the following:
- One billiard ball is still on the table, and another moves towards it with rapidity.
- The two billiard balls collide, and the one that was still acquires movement.
If we look at A and B, we see that beyond the circumstances of contiguity in space and time, priority in time, and constant conjunction, we do not see anything else. Therefore, our mind creates the idea of a necessary connection, stating that a cause will always produce the same effect. However, if we analyze the process carefully, we see that there is no impression in the mind that compels it to create this fiction of a necessary connection, except through the force of habit and custom.
Hume’s Ethics
In his book Research on the Origins of Morality, Hume argues that there is no rational reason to act one way or another, but we do so through attraction. Reason does not tell us what is good or bad, but our attraction leads us to our moral judgments. This is a relativistic theory because it all depends on what we do, but it is also a realistic and utilitarian theory because feeling and acting for a reason are not useful. Acting in a certain way causes us pleasure, and we then evaluate why we act in that way. Often, we act for our own pleasure, which can lead us to mistakes because we are not acting correctly but seeking what gives us pleasure. This leads to benevolence (the pleasure of others).
Hume disapproves of negligible actions because he believes that a person should not like an action they consider bad. What we consider bad (a flaw) is what we hate, and what we feel good about is what makes us proud. We should only think about what we must do. However, the action depends on its consequences.
Emotivism
Emotivism is based on feelings. Individuals have no impressions or ideas that form the basis of our moral ideas, and therefore we usually take our passions (emotions and feelings) for ideas. For emotivists, morality is based not on reason but on feelings. There are two types of adjectives: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Ethical or moral judgments are not either of these types; they are based only on a feeling or emotion.
Ethics of Epicurus: Hedonism
The most important part of Epicurean ethics is that the goal is individual happiness. Humans are free to choose their life and are endowed with reason (and decide to think). Happiness is ataraxia (tranquility of the soul and absence of pain), linked to feelings of pleasure (hedoné) – hence, hedonism. Pleasure orders actions, and the endpoint is moral: what causes us pleasure is good, and what causes us pain is bad. However, as rational animals, we seek pleasure by calculating its consequences: a momentary pleasure can cause subsequent pain, and a momentary pain can cause subsequent pleasure. Safe pleasures are those that satisfy natural needs, leading to serenity and moderation of life. This is given by virtue and autonomy (the less a person needs to live and is not dependent on foreign goods). Therefore, ethics is individualistic; as great empires were formed, individuals felt “lost” and sought happiness by satisfying their own needs rather than a common good.
Aristotle’s Ethics
According to Aristotle, there are two types of virtue: those aimed at knowledge and those aimed at living well. Therefore, virtues are divided into:
- Dianoetic: Linked to intellectual activity, including wisdom (the theoretical basis that helps us access real science or knowledge) and prudence (practical wisdom that guides our behavior, allowing us to use knowledge to determine the average).
- Ethical or Moral: Virtues such as justice, fortitude, kindness, and truth. Aristotle says these virtues come from habit, meaning that no virtue originates in us (we are not born virtuous), and all moral virtues are the result of an effort of will. This habit becomes a custom, and this repeated custom is the way a person expresses themselves through their actions in all areas of their life.
Aristotle states that moral virtue is a middle ground (mesotes) extracted from two extremes, but this middle ground is not equal for everyone, as it must take into account the circumstances of each person. For Aristotle, virtue cannot be performed outside of living in society because humans are social and political animals by nature, intended to live and form families, towns, and states. Only within these social groups can they achieve the full development of their abilities. Of these social forms, the state is the highest and is aimed at the internal and external security of citizens, economic prosperity, and, above all, the moral education of the highest possible number of citizens. According to Aristotle, the happiness of the state does not depend on luck but on the wisdom and virtue of its citizens. For Aristotle, unlike for Plato, a just city is a happy city where people live well according to virtue.
Stoic Ethics
For Stoics, man is a product of fate and destiny. Freedom is the adequacy of human reason to reason in the world. Happiness is the calm and confident acceptance of fate. Free will involves mastering passions (epatic), and wisdom is being able to endure desperate situations (self-control and prudence). Social justice involves virtues and benevolence.