David Hume's Argument Against Moral Realism

I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.

This is a lecture video about a short selection from book 3 of David Hume's famous work of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40). Hume was an empiricist. The lecture of basically a presentation of his argument from empiricism to the conclusion that there are no genuine, objective moral facts residing in actions themselves (rather, there are only sentiments of moral disapprobation or disapproval in us). This lecture of part of Introduction to Ethics.

[dundeedolphin]

Not many people know this but David Hume was an absolutely huge man. There is a statue of him in Edinburgh. He had to have been about 8 feet tall.

[lisajennie]

You are the best at explaining philosophical theories. I hope one day you will finish doing videos like this for everything xD

[r.michaelburns]

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” -- Hamlet, Act II scene 2

[skepticsagar]

You explain philosophical topics so simply, aptly, clearly, and beautifully! Thanks

[Gingergent]

Thank you for all of your vids. I finished the philosophy playlist and now I'm into ethics. You're an excellent teacher!

[baggins]

I like this guy, and his ability to write backwards is AMAZING.

[CatastrophicDisease]

Am I crazy or is he writing backwards on the board so we can see it the right way? Because that’s extremely impressive

[battlefieldcustoms]

your videos really have helped me understand that its philosophy with a focus on psychology that I want to follow and study as both a life career and hobby

[thehannahANDmaryshow]

It is 12:31am and I'm watching this for class, or I WAS until I was brought to tears laughing at that little "No" about Madagascar

[Allyballybean]

It sounds like he’s saying Hume thinks morality doesn’t exist or is unimportant. I think Hume was just saying morality is a personal or human construct and can’t be derived through empirical ‘logical’ means. That’s not to say it’s not central to human existence. Hume certainly didn’t think morality didn’t exist or murder was okay.

[patmoran]

Jeffrey, This is an excellent presentation for the non-philosopher.

[DuoDogs]

Yes he is very good. The thing that somewhat redeems my faith in higher education is that he is just talking about ideas behind a "chalkboard" though it is a see-through board. That's the way it used to be, as a former lecturer now retired I considered getting in a local college as an adjunct. Not around here, you have to be versed in high tech presentations, none of this just talking about stuff, and you can not send in a resume and get an interview. No you have to apply online, via a portal and the forms, are not only years out of date, they also contain so many spelling and syntax errors looks like a MAD magazine article.

[marradka]

If we take the main moral problem to be suffering or pain, pain might be more empirical. And we take actions as causes and explanations (like electrons), then the vice can be actions which cause an experience of pain or a claim by others of “ouch”. And when we observe puppies being thrown off a bridge, we imagine based on prior experience and prior empirical knowledge “if I went off of a bridge in that way, then I would feel pain (or fear or distress)”. And since many moral claims are of the sort that “such an action is wrong, and such an action causes pain”, then we can preserve as a definition of vice “actions that cause pain” ; and this would preserve most of the things (principles or rules) that we commonly call morality. And in the case of death or intentional murder, the pain would be first the terrific fear caused by the anticipation of being murdered, and secondly the grief and sadness caused in others by our loss.

[mujtabaalam]

"Take an argument you consider to be valid. Hume's, for instance. Examine it in all lights and see if you can find that matter of fact or real existence which you call validity."

[tgshore]

Okay, but in the case of puppy-throwing, we *experience* disapprobation, as Hume claims. Is not disapprobation then not itself an experience? And if so, then what is the cause of the disapprobation? The most natural cause of this experience would be the viciousness of the act. Then, viciousness is necessary to explain the experience of disapprobation, and consequently, viciousness should be something we believe in according to the definition of empiricism. What am I missing?

[jonstewart]

It's a great argument. In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt brings it right up to date by detailing why we evolved the "disapprobations" we feel when we witness the puppy tosser (or Donald Trump, Priti Patel, etc.). Personally, I've got utilitarian sympathies, but they're an intellectual construct that one can't live out in practice; they're not what what morality "really is". Morality is the way we have evolved to feel about human behaviour in order that we can live successfully in cohesive societies and thus propagate our genes. That's why we're reliably inconsistent and any system (be it deontological or consequentialist) is doomed to fail.

[frederikspudnik]

You had me at the saltiness of the tears of the puppies

[douglynch]

My favorite part of this video is at 22:12 when he says "and we haven't found...um...Mermaid tools." Good stuff. What kind of tools would mermaids have? I'm thinkin' drills.

[hoagie]

Kinda insane you didn't mention the most famous outcome of Hume's work: the is-ought gap.

[claire-elizabethdjaballah]

Thanks for being so clear and consice!!