David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthesis Philosophica 26 (2):323-336 (2011)
David Hume thinks that human affections are naturally partial, while Francis Hutcheson holds that humans originally have disinterested benevolence. Michael Gill argues that Hume's moral theory succeeds over Hutcheson's because the former severs the link between explaining and justifying morality. According to Gill, Hutcheson is wrong to assume that our original nature should be the basis of morality. Gill's understanding of Hutcheson's theory does not fully represent it, since for Hutcheson self-love and self-interest under certain conditions are permissible, or even desirable or necessary for the good of society. There is not much difference between Hutcheson's and Hume's theories in the sense that they both extract impartial morality from human character as it is. Hume's theory does not succeed over Hutcheson's because Hume does not propose a better way of extracting morality nor explain all moral phenomena.
|Keywords||Francis Hutcheson David Hume Michael B. Gill ethics human nature impartiality benevolence partiality self-interest self-love|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
V. Hope (1989). Virtue by Consensus: The Moral Philosophy of Hutcheson, Hume, and Adam Smith. Oxford University Press.
James A. Harris (2008). Religion in Hutcheson's Moral Philosophy. Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (2):pp. 205-222.
Michael B. Gill (2009). Moral Phenomenology in Hutcheson and Hume. Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (4):pp. 569-594.
Christian Maurer (2010). Hutcheson's Relation to Stoicism in the Light of His Moral Psychology. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 8 (1):33-49.
John J. Tilley (2012). Exciting Reasons and Moral Rationalism in Hutcheson's Illustrations Upon the Moral Sense. Journal of the History of Philosophy 50 (1):53-83.
Marie A. Martin (1991). Hutcheson and Hume on Explaining the Nature of Morality: Why It Is Mistaken to Suppose Hume Ever Raised the "Is-Ought" Question. History of Philosophy Quarterly 8 (3):277 - 289.
Simon Grote (2006). Hutcheson's Divergence From Shaftesbury. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 4 (2):159-172.
Francis Hutcheson (1993). On Human Nature. Cambridge University Press.
Patricia Sheridan (2007). The Metaphysical Morality of Francis Hutcheson: A Consideration of Hutcheson's Critique of Moral Fitness Theory. Sophia 46 (3):263-275.
Noriaki Iwasa (2011). Sentimentalism and the Is-Ought Problem. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (33):323-352.
Added to index2009-06-28
Total downloads78 ( #58,431 of 1,938,583 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #70,273 of 1,938,583 )
How can I increase my downloads?