Lecture on David Hume

This evening's lecture was, in my opinion, the best / most interesting guest lecture of the year here at the Kartause. The title: David Hume and the Is-Ought Debate. Hume (1711-1776) was an empiricist, a sceptic, and an important figure of the Scottish "enlightenment" (read: endarkenment). The Is-Ought debate involves a passage from Hume's work A Treatise of Human Nature:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

The generally agreed upon interpretation of this key passage (which appears nowhere else in Hume's works, and which he removed from the second edition of this work) is that no moral obligation can ever be derived from a statement of fact. For example, "You are a parent" (statement of fact) has no more connection to "you should take care of your child" (moral statement) than "this is a computer" (statement of fact) has to "you should pay your debts."

Even more radically sceptical than Descartes (according to Hume: cogito non ergo sum), Hume built up a system of morality based entirely on feelings. He did not phrase it so simplistically, but it basically boils down to today's moral adage: if it feels good do it.

As an aside, this so horrified Emmanuel Kant that he sought to re-establish morality on firmer ground by effectively severing the human mind from reality, a cure worse than the original disease. Kantianism in turn so horrified Rudolf Bultmann that he tried to salvage the faith by separating it entirely from reason, which is to say that faith is false and precisely therein lies its superiority over the world of reason. The cure again was worse than the disease. May God spare us any more such cures.

But back to Hume. This evening's lecturer maintains that Hume has actually played a rather cunning trick on his readers in the passage in question. He says that moral thinkers begin by talking about God and men and then move to speak of moral obligations without explanation. In point of fact the existence and nature of God and man is the explanation. If you set these aside at the outset, as Hume does, then of course you'll find that there is no ground for morality, no way to move from "is" to "ought."