It’s so very annoying when I see one person accuse another person or group of being “emotional” in contrast to their own politics which are somehow “rational” or “rationally” determined. I saw it come up today in a convo about women voting. It’s just a little lie that they tell themselves. What counts as “rational” politics? Usually some kind of anti-value utilitarianism. If you think “rational” politics are possible, that’s just your sentiments lying to you.
Uhh, is this the right thread?
Yes.
You started a thread about rational vs emotional in poitics.
I posted an example.
3 Likes
Okay. Hume would say that it doesn’t disprove his case because choosing to support him anyway would still be motivated by sentiments.
He’s not trying to disprove it. He’s supporting you.
1 Like
Oh. @Gaius seemed like he was posting it as an example of politics that are more “emotional” than “rational”.
Well I posted an exampleof someone who objects to the fact that some people get emotional when they should be ratonal . . . an example of what you posted in the OP.
2 Likes
In that case, I stand by my critique in front of her.
Should we make decsions based on logic or emotion?
I have not read Hume in a while, but I am pretty sure he does not believe
"Rational decisions are impossible, especially in politics.
Therefore we should not even try."
More likely he believed
“We all need to be aware of our shortcomings in this area
and try to elimante them. Do not embrace those shortcomings, recognize them, admit them & strive to eliminate them.”
Hume’s thesis isn’t that “rational decisions are impossible”. It’s that moral/political/value judgments are not the conclusions of reason and that they never could be.
1 Like
You make it sound like Hume was a competle relativist.
More nearly the opposite is true.
Hume is perhaps best known for epistemology,
the philosophy of “Where does learning come from? How do we know what we know.”
His most famous passage is one involving billard balls. To paraphrase him.
- When we observe one ball strike another, and see the second one move, we infer cause. The first ball caused teh second one to move.
- We infer it (inductive logic) based on many many previous observations.
- Nothing wrong with inductive logic. It is great. We use it all the time we should continue to use it.
- We would be wrong to conclude “I ahve no idea why the second ball moved. Must be magic.”
- Inductive logic, in some ways is not as strong as deductive logic, and we should recognize that too. but no, we should not throw it away.
Your statement, and perhaps I am reading it wrong was
“. . . are not the conclusions of reason and that they never could be,”
and that seems completely at odds with what he actually wrote.
Hume can either be interpreted as either a moral non-cognitivist (NOT a moral relativist), a moral sense theorist, or as some sort of moral intuitionist.
From here:
Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be deriv’d from reason; and that because reason alone, as we have already prov’d, can never have any such influence. Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.
Okay he wrote that he meant that.
That is very very different than:
It is also is very very different than:
I suppose I could concur with that if we remove the word “political.”
Hume’s thesis (is) . . . . that moral/value judgments are not the conclusions of reason and that they never could be.
That is acceptable.
Moral/value judgments often have a role in poltical judgements but so do many other things (economics, self-interest, science etc.)
And then he reacted emotionally rather than rationally to your agreement with him.
“Must oppose the other side.”
3 Likes
Yeah, but no biggie.
I am willing to give that a pass.
I am more concerned with how the quote
Seems to be (may or may not be) taking Hume’s politically-related ideas out of context.
The ideas of Hume and Locke and a few others were relatively recent in 1776 and were founding ideas of out country.
“Uhh, is this the right thread?” is emotional to you?
The moral and political blur together. They’re both about what should be done.
He’d say those are all reliant prior sentiments. You heard of the is-ought gap? That’s basically his point.
1 Like
This is the following paragraph:
Reason is the discovery of truth or falshood. Truth or falshood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relations of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact. Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason. Now 'tis evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement; being original facts and realities, compleat in themselves, and implying no reference to other passions, volitions, and actions. 'Tis impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.
This is where one can argue that Hume is a moral non-cognitivist, which is quite different than a moral relativist. A relativist affirms that moral proclamations are subject to truth-valuation and only denies that they are objective. A moral non-cognitivist denies that it’s even meaningful to say that moral proclamations are true/false.
Perhaps Hume is only speaking of emotions here and not moral valuations, but it’s ambiguous.