David Hume's Theory Of Reason

Better Essays
David Hume is concerned with the role of reason which it plays in action and belief in human life throughout his philosophy. Hume simply argues that neither our belief nor actions are determined by reason: in his works he inspects the role of reason in human life. “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” . Hume’s principle is that reason is subordinate to passions. Hume presupposes that the faculty of reason does not determine belief and action. Hume shows that our most fundamental beliefs, about the existence of object, about what we are not presently observing, and in the existence of the self are not acquired by reason, but instead by the imagination, …show more content…
Essential to this method is the requirement that one should "set aside as false" what might be doubted. On the traditional conception, then, we are following the dictates of reason only when we come to believe something because we have certain and indubitable reasons to think it as true” . If reason is the source of a belief, the Person will satisfy two criteria in arriving at it: he will infer only from premises which he knows to be true, and his reasoning will proceed in accordance with the accepted rules of good inference. On the interpretation of Hume's argument, one of the conceptions of reason with which Hume is concerned is this Cartesian view ;if reason were like this then it would not determine our beliefs about the unobserved or the continued and distinct existence of objects. He says that if reason or the understanding, which he often equates with this conception of reason, did determine the belief, then it would have to proceed upon a principle which is well-founded, a just conclusion; the transition would have to be a just inference and the conclusion built on solid reasoning. He then proceeds to show that these conditions are not fulfilled in these instances, for we in fact have "no reason to believe these things. It is because the beliefs are unreasonable, then, that reason cannot be the source of them. Thus Hume, like …show more content…
He has determined that these operations are not those described in the traditional conception of reason” . He does not conclude that we therefore do not arrive at our beliefs through reasoning. Rather, he rejects the traditional conception of reason and proposes in its place another description where it is a natural process in which we all engage in arriving at our beliefs. Hume thinks that the nature of reason is revealed by observing certain clear facts. First, according to Hume reasoning is something human beings including children and common people engage in. Therefore reasoning cannot be something so mysterious or subtle that it cannot be attributed to all normal people. In the introduction to the Treatise, Hume thinks that one can establish that they never escape the most stupid and ignorant, that animals, as well as human beings, reason and that their method of reasoning is no different from ours. Therefore, he offers a test for a successful explanation of the nature of reason: Let us therefore put our present system and see whether it will equally account for the reasoning of beasts as for that of the human species. While Hume thinks his theory meets both tests, the Cartesian model fails on each. Though on the traditional conception human beings may possess the potential to reason, but not mostly according to the method which Descartes advances to enable us to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    David Hume’s belief that morality is based on sentiment can be defined by the feelings of approval and disapproval one will have when they act. Hume argues that reason cannot discover moral truths but that sentiment is the basis of morality. I agree with Hume in the sense that one needs a feeling of approval or disapproval in order to motivate an action. Hume presents the argument that one's feelings is the basis of morality and that reasons, not reason alone, which is defined to be a cause or justification on why one may act, can not be the basis of morality solely because reason is already proved and can not be changed by influence. Reason also deals with matter of fact.…

    • 822 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One very impressive attack on Hume’s argument, trying to solve it with its definition, is as follows. The first premise of the argument is challenged, which is “if we want induction to be rationally justified, induction must be reliable.” Since the definition of deduction is based on the validity of an argument, which is assumed to be reliable, why couldn’t reliability be a part of the definition of induction? Induction is defined to be reliable in this attack. However, reliability cannot be a part of the definition because it is a way to evaluate those methods, such as deduction and induction. The criteria for the evaluation is a totally different idea than the method itself.…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Empirical arguments state that truths are grounded in sensory experience. It can be inferred that things exist, simply because we observe them. For a proposition to be considered true, it must line up with reality; and for there to be objective truths, there must be an objective reality. There is no point in debating the fact of this, as one would simply be debating with his or her own self in his or her own reality. The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Name: Course: Title: Date: KANT’S GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS 1. Deontology is the view of the act to be moral or not moral from the action done. In deontology, the consequences that an action may impact to individuals are not considered but rather, the logic behind the action is determined. Consequences should not be used to justify the good in any action, “a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes” (Ross 33). Such action should arise from the duty, and law assigned to individuals by a system but not out of self-interest or the consequences.…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Evidence is crucial to moral skepticism because it determines how we justify our thoughts so whenever possible one should always strive to understand all aspects of a situation. By comprehending the totality of an event, the best moral decision can be determined. The extreme contrast class includes every moral claim contrary to the chosen action, including all extreme forms of thoughts. (Sinnot-Armstrong Section 4) One such extreme is the idea of moral nihilism or the idea that nothing is morally wrong. If noting is morally wrong then no moral truths exist.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    William James argued that under the right conditions it is legitimate to will to believe in something even without evidence to support it. The only reason not to will to believe something would be if there is evidence provided against it. He also claimed that one cannot be criticized for forming these beliefs (James, Part 5). This claim, by James, is incorrect. One, instead, should be able to criticize the beliefs of others.…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Free Will Vs Determinism

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    A neutral stance to this is the claim that “ one can be held morally responsible for one’s actions only if one could have acted otherwise in a given set of circumstances.” (The Philosophical Review, page 440). Determinist would disagree with this claim because it is if an agent is never in control of the situations that they are forced into, how can they be morally responsible. Free will does not easily tie into the premise because if we choose our own action then we should be held morally reasonable for them, but if one said that “X” did Y because she/ he could it fails to prove moral responsibility and seems as if our action or arbitrary or random. However if an act is described as “not determined” or “uncaused” that means that free will cannot be used because the action is random therefore not in the agent’s power, thus making morally responsibility invalid. Simply, without the just the agent being the cause of an action, they cannot be held to moral…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Specifically, it attempts an account of explanations that end with “non-inferentially justified belief”, by showing the existence of beliefs with a certain property that makes it appropriately basic and indefeasible. This strategy consists of relating claims to know to a foundation, which is asserted to be true, which can be correctly applied to yield knowledge. In this manner, foundationalism aims to provide an alternative to the regression problem – that the chain of reasons can come to rest on something which is immediately self-evident and is thus capable of stopping the regress. Claims to know are typically justified by virtue of such a first principle, or set of principles, known to be true, from which the remainder of the theory strictly follows. Since foundationalism provides reasoning on the basis of one or more indefeasible principles, which are regarded as necessary and necessarily true, knowledge derived from such principles should be beyond doubt of any kind, defeating even the most radical forms of scepticism.…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This is also addressed in Fichte’s, Review of Aenesidemus, when he writes that, “we must have a real principle… not have to express a fact just as content [eine Tatsache, actual fact]; it can also express a fact as performance [eine Tathandlung, actual deed] (Fichte, 141). Schelling’s dogmatic view, in which he showed that outside objects are “things in themselves,” comes from Spinoza’s determinist views that focused on a reason and cause relationship. By denying the plurality of entities, Spinoza’s realism clearly tries to negate idealism, and therefore creates a major significant difference between Schelling and…

    • 1424 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In “How Not to Answer Moral Questions,” Regan asserts that moral truth is independent of one’s moral judgment, thus making moral truth a universal reality. In “Moral Isolationism,” Midgley argues that one can morally judge another culture if individual understanding is present. Despite their cohesive conclusions, there is not harmony between the two theories’ premises. Regan’s view on universal moral truth directly rejects Midgley’s idea that moral truth relies on a complete understanding behind the justification of another’s moral judgment. If moral questions were approached the way Regan believes they should be, the “isolating barriers” that Midgley criticized would not be within question, because morality is not relative or…

    • 1516 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays