On Morality as an Emotion

David Hume argues in his book, A Treatise of Human Nature, that humans derive value and morals from emotions instead of reasoning and fact.  At first when I read this I thought he was way off base but after discussing it in class I realized that he does have many valid points that I agree with.  I do not necessarily believe everything he puts forth but I do for a lot of it.

He begins his arguments by saying that the only thing the mind can know is perceptions.  These perceptions include our sense like taste, touch and sight as well as our thoughts and feelings towards the world around us.  Hume goes further to break down these perceptions into ideas and impressions.  From there we can look at morality as either one of the two.  If we argue that morality is an idea that is concreted in truth then it must follow that morality is a constant, where one behavior is always moral and another is not.  How can someone label one behavior as always moral however?  Morals are situational and there is no black and white test on what is moral in one situation and what is immoral in the same.  People base it on their own gut instincts instead of a reasoned algorithm to determine the relative morality of each behavior.  They can just feel what is right and what is wrong.

If morality were a set truth then it would not change over time either.   We can look at history and easily discredit this argument.  Less than 200 years ago it was completely acceptable and in the eyes of many not immoral to own slaves and beat them because they were less than human.  Now we look back and cringe at the apparent immorality of our ancestors.  Even in this day our moral code as a society is shifting.  Look at the gay rights movement.  Prior to this generation almost no one accepted homosexuals, saying that they were immoral and acting against God himself.  Now however, we see that people are changing what they view as immoral and moral, accepting actions as moral that were previously moral.  If morals truly were based in fact than how could they change?  Facts are set, unchanging and definite.  Since morals change they are obviously not based in natural fact.

Hume’s next point is one I have a little trouble buying into completely.  He states that reason cannot evoke any actions and is rigid and unchanging.  If all everyone knew every fact than perhaps reason could be called rigid, but with each new fact someone learns their reasoning and outlook on the world changes.  Now the main point I disagree with that he brings up here is that reason cannot cause or prevent actions.  Hume states that reason can excite passions in individuals that then cause them to act.  How is this not reason exciting action?  If you look at it the reason caused the passion, which caused the action.  So, if even if you buy Hume’s argument that only passion creates actions the reason still caused the action through the transitive process.  Reason can affect actions in the manner of exciting passions therefore reason causes actions.

Now I concede that reason is one step off of creating the action so Hume’s points still hold that actions are not good or evil due to reasoning.  It is still the passion that has the final say in someone’s actions so if someone is embarrassed by an act or feels that it is immoral they will still avoid doing it even if reason tells them they will be better off.  If someone has a strong moral code and has reasoned that he can get away with theft he will still resist it do to the emotions he feels contrary to the reasoned selfishness his mind is telling him.  Morality and emotions can trump reason but that does not mean reason cannot affect actions.

In the same stream Hume states that actions cannot be labeled as either good or evil.  Instead they are all situational.  If actions could be labeled as moral or immoral than even inanimate objects would be capable of immorality.  If you are walking down the street and see a man run into an old lady and continue walking you will label that man as inconsiderate and rude, however, if you watch a rock roll down a hill and hit a smaller rock you will not label the rock as immoral.  Because actions in and of themselves cannot be moral or immoral it follows that there is no set criteria for morality and immorality therefore it is beyond reason to comprehend what creates and dictates the conception of morality.

In conclusion I believe that Hume has many valid points and that morality is based largely on emotional feelings rather than reasoned thought.  People all have different facts at their fingertips yet they all come up with similar moral codes around the world indicating that some form of evolution deemed our moral system as beneficial to society.