Humes Argument on the Distinction Benevolence and...

Humes Argument on the Distinction Benevolence and Self-love In his Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals, Hume rebukes the arguments of skeptical, philosophers who deny the existence of moral distinctions. He doubts that an individual can be so indifferent that he or she is unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Hume believes that the differences between men arise from nature, from habit, and from education. Hume believes no skeptic, no matter how doubtful, can claim that there are absolutely no moral distinctions. Also, he accepts if we disregard these skeptics, we find that they eventually give up their unconvincing claims and come over to the side of common sense and reason. In this paper, it will be shown that†¦show more content†¦He thinks it is sufficient for his purpose, that there is some benevolence, however small, instilled into our heart; some amount of friendship for human kind: Let these generous sentiments, says he, be supposed ever so weak; let them be hardly sufficient to move even a hand or finger of our body; they must still direct the determinations of the mind, and where every thing else is equal, produce a cool preference of what is useful and serviceable to mankind, above what is pernicious and dangerous. A moral distinction, therefore, immediately arises; a general sentiment of blame and approbation; {11} a tendency, however faint, to the objects of the one, and a proportionable aversion to those of the other(72). Hume goes on to ask, why utility pleases; why is it that we admire those qualities that are beneficial to society? Before answering this question he notes that it does not concern inanimate objects. We obviously find many such objects to be useful, but that is no reason to suppose that we are call them virtuous, nor do we, except in immoral ways, attribute virtues to them(62-64). Those opinionsShow MoreRelatedEssay about Biography of Adam Smith3516 Words   |  15 Pagesauthorless rules which they and the courts have used in statutory interpretation. The first is that when people use words we should expect others to interpret them in their ordinary sense, or dictionary meaning. The second rule -- given that some distinction is required -- is to adopt the meaning as used by the most celebrated writers. In adverting to the terms and definitions of Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, I think it will be found that he has less frequently and less strikingly deviated