David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Examining the moral sense theories of Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, and Adam Smith, this essay shows that the moral sense or moral sentiments in those theories alone cannot identify appropriate morals. Chapter 1 first introduces those theories and clarifies important differences between them. It then examines whether moral judgment based on the moral sense or moral sentiments varies according to one's metaphysical beliefs. For this, the essay mainly applies those theories to such issues as stem cell research, abortion, and active euthanasia. In all three theories, false religious beliefs can distort moral judgment. In Hutcheson's theory, answers to stem cell research, abortion, and active euthanasia do not change according to the spectator's metaphysical beliefs. Yet answers to those issues can change according to the agent's metaphysical beliefs. Hume's theory cannot provide answers to stem cell research and abortion where the embryo or fetus is the receiver (the one affected by the agent's action) and to active euthanasia where the patient is unconscious. It may provide answers to abortion where the pregnant woman is the receiver and to active euthanasia where the patient is conscious. Yet the answers can vary depending on the woman's or the patient's metaphysical beliefs. Smith's theory can provide answers to stem cell research, abortion, and active euthanasia. But the answers can vary depending on the agent's metaphysical beliefs. These show that the moral sense or moral sentiments in those theories alone cannot identify appropriate morals. Chapter 2 examines those theories from the perspective of the is-ought problem. According to one interpretation, Hume's or Smith's theory is just a description of human nature. In this case, it does not answer the question of how we ought to live. According to another interpretation, it has some normative implications. In this case, it draws normative claims from human nature. Anyway, the sentiments of anger, resentment, vengeance, superiority, sympathy, and benevolence show that drawing norms from human nature is sometimes morally problematic. The changeability of the moral sense and moral sentiments in Hume's and Smith's theories supports this idea. Hutcheson's theory is morally more appropriate because it bases morality on disinterested benevolence. Yet disinterested benevolence is not enough for morality. There are no sentiments the presence of which alone makes any action moral. Chapter 3 analyzes three defenses of those theories against the relativism charge that a moral sense or moral sentiments vary across people, societies, cultures, or times. The first defense is the claim that there is a universal moral sense or universal moral sentiments. However, even if they exist, a moral sense or moral sentiments alone cannot identify appropriate morals. The second defense is to adopt a general viewpoint theory, which identifies moral principles by taking a general viewpoint. But it needs to employ reason, and even if not, it does not guarantee that we identify appropriate morals. The third defense is to adopt an ideal observer theory, which draws moral principles from sentimental reactions of an ideal observer. Yet it still does not show that a moral sense or moral sentiments alone can identify appropriate morals.
|Keywords||Francis Hutcheson David Hume Adam Smith moral sense moral sentiment sentimentalism moral psychology moral epistemology metaethics ethics|
|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
Peter Singer (1995). Is There a Universal Moral Sense? Critical Review 9 (3):325-339.
Noriaki Iwasa (2013). On Three Defenses of Sentimentalism. Prolegomena 12 (1):61-82.
Noriaki Iwasa (2011). Sentimentalism and the Is-Ought Problem. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (33):323-352.
Susan M. Purviance (2002). Ethical Externalism and the Moral Sense. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:585-600.
Rachel Cohon (2010). Hume's Moral Sentiments As Motives. Hume Studies 36 (2):193-213.
J. Baird Callicott (1992). Can a Theory of Moral Sentiments Support a Genuinely Normative Environmental Ethic? Inquiry 35 (2):183 – 198.
Noriaki Iwasa (2011). Hume's Alleged Success Over Hutcheson. Synthesis Philosophica 26 (2):323-336.
Paul Russell (2004). Responsibility and the Condition of Moral Sense. Philosophical Topics 32 (1-2):287-305.
John Bricke (1996). Mind and Morality: An Examination of Hume's Moral Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Noriaki Iwasa (2010). Sentimentalism and Metaphysical Beliefs. Prolegomena 9 (2):271-286.
Added to index2009-08-16
Total downloads32 ( #134,911 of 2,254,584 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,476 of 2,254,584 )
How can I increase my downloads?