“Actions themselves, not proceeding from any constant principle, have no influence on love or hatred, pride or humility; and consequently are never considered in morality.” (3.3.1.4)
I wonder if this is universally true; many will condemn an individual’s action yet claim “she is still a good person”.
“’Tis observed by critics… and is depriv’d of its natural influence upon society.” (3.3.1.22)
I suppose I just don’t understand the analogy given here… it doesn’t seem relevant (which is only my perception; I am sure there is a relevance).
“…pride, or self-applause, be sometimes disagreeable to others, ‘tis always agreeable to ourselves; as on the other hand, modesty, though it give pleasure to everyone, who observes it, produces often uneasiness in the person endowed with it.” (3.3.2.9)
Doesn’t this contradict Hume’s definition of virtue and vice? Isn’t virtue that which produces pleasure and vice that which produces uneasiness (in the self)? Or am I mistaken here?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Virtue and vice are labelled as such by those who are effected by the behavior, typically the rest of us, not simply the actor.
I wonder the same thing about that first quote. I think we hold inherent opinions of people based on character, but that we develop that character profile based on their actions. I also think when we self-reflect, we look at our own character and self based on actions we've taken. We feel guilt/regret or pride/satisfaction.
I think what Hume means in that third quote is that sometimes pleasure or uneasiness of self isn't equal to pleasure or uneasiness of others. I think that which causes pleasure to others and perhaps long-term satisfaction to self is that which is virtuous.
Post a Comment