David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Hume Studies 29 (2):165-204 (2003)
- Peter Railton1 Railton's remark is accurate; contemporary philosophers almost invariably suppose that morality is more vulnerable than empirical science to scepticism. Yet David Hume apparently embraces an inversion of this twentieth century orthodoxy.2 In book I of the Treatise, he claims that the understanding, when it reflects upon itself, "entirely subverts itself" (T 1. 4.7.7; SBN 267) while, in contrast, in book III he claims that our moral faculty, when reflecting upon itself, acquires "new force" (T 18.104.22.168; SBN 619). Such passages suggest Hume's view is that morality's claims on us are justified, whereas the understanding's claims are not -- that scepticism about empirical science, but not morality, is irresistible. However, this interpretation does not accurately reflect Hume's position. Indeed, any interpretation which has Hume concluding that the understanding's claims on us are not justified faces an obvious worry - it makes nonsense of the rest of his naturalistic project, including, but not limited to, his description and justification of our moral faculty. For in defending his account of our moral faculty and, perhaps more clearly, in arguing against those who believe in miracles, Hume inescapably presupposes that the understanding's claims on us are in some sense justified. In light of Hume's meticulous and enthusiastic pursuit of his larger naturalistic project, one might even be tempted to conclude that Hume never really thought his sceptical arguments were sound. It would, however, be a mistake to submit to this temptation -- to do so would be to ignore the last part of book I of the Treatise, in which Hume evidently does find such arguments to be sound. Hume is undeniably impressed by scepticism about the
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Hsueh Qu (2014). Hume's Practically Epistemic Conclusions? Philosophical Studies 170 (3):501-524.
Don Garrett (2007). Reasons to Act and Believe: Naturalism and Rational Justification in Hume's Philosophical Project. Philosophical Studies 132 (1):1 - 16.
Hsueh Qu (2014). Hume's Positive Argument on Induction. Noûs 48 (4):595-625.
Ryan Pollock & David W. Agler (2015). Hume and Peirce on the Ultimate Stability of Belief. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (1):n/a-n/a.
Lisa Ievers (2014). In What Sense Are Errors in Philosophy ‘Only Ridiculous’? Journal of Scottish Philosophy 12 (2):213-229.
Similar books and articles
Don Garrett (2008). Feeling and Fabrication: Rachel Cohon's Hume's Morality. Hume Studies 34 (2):257-266.
Henrik Bohlin (2009). Sympathy, Understanding, and Hermeneutics in Hume's Treatise. Hume Studies 35 (1-2):135-170.
Louis E. Loeb (2006). Psychology, Epistemology, and Skepticism in Hume's Argument About Induction. Synthese 152 (3):321 - 338.
Dennis Farrell Thompson (1998). Hume's Skepticism. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts - Amherst
David Owen (1999). Hume's Reason. Oxford University Press.
Mark Collier (2008). Two Puzzles in Hume's Epistemology. History of Philosophy Quarterly 25 (4):301 - 314.
James Baillie (2000). Hume on Morality. Routledge.
Jerry A. Fodor (2003). Hume Variations. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #105,569 of 1,790,567 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #106,758 of 1,790,567 )
How can I increase my downloads?