Reviews for An essay on moral responsibility

The average rating for An essay on moral responsibility based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-01-07 00:00:00 Douglas Patton It had been some time since I had last visited 221B Baker Street, and when I entered I found my friend engrossed in the study of a slim volume. "Watson!" he said, without lifting his eyes from the text. "Pray tell me, are you by any chance familiar with Mr. Hume's Enquiry into the Principles of Morals?" I could not hide a smile of modest self-congratulation. "Indeed, Holmes," I said, "I know the book very well. I wrote an essay on it during my final year at Oxford, and was fortunate enough to be rewarded for my efforts by winning a minor prize." "Excellent, excellent!" said Holmes. "Then you will no doubt have little difficulty in summarizing the content?" "I think, even at this remove in time, that I would be equal to the task," I replied. "Mr. Hume regarded the book as his greatest and most important achievement in the field of philosophy. He endeavors to explain the origins of our moral sense, and considers three main explanations: that moral principles are due to custom, that they are due to self-interest, and that they are due to the general benefit they bring to society as a whole. Although he does not by any means discount the relevance of the first two causes, the author nonetheless maintains, throughout his book, that the third is by far the most important. This notion he argues for at length, supplying a wealth of examples in its support; though despite the fact that I generally found myself in agreement with him, and to no small extent influenced by the ideas he propounds, I am forced to admit that the prolixity of his explanations and the inordinate length of his sentences on occasion caused me to wish that he had found a more succinct manner to present his thoughts." "It is indeed evident," said Holmes, "that Mr. Hume has had a considerably influence on you. But I must confess that, speaking for myself, there was another aspect of the work that more immediately engaged my attention." "And what may that be?" I asked. "Why," said Holmes, "it is perhaps of little account; but were you not struck by the curious nature of the author's remarks concerning the possibility that moral principles are divinely ordained, and follow from the precepts of Holy Scripture?" "I am not sure I grasp your meaning," I replied. "To the best of my recollection, Mr. Hume says little or nothing about this matter." "Quite so!" said Holmes with satisfaction. "You have put it in a nutshell. That is exactly the curious circumstance to which I was referring."

Review # 2 was written on 2017-05-29 00:00:00 Shawn Fraser Hume is the moral philosopher who is most recognizable as a fellow modern human being. In his short autobiographical "My Own Life", he says that the Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals is "incomparably the best" of all his writings (though he admits that he isn't the one to judge that). Reading this for the first time, I was surprised at how little "philosophy" is in it--by that, I mean how little complicated argumentation there is. Most of the arguments are short and direct: against someone who thinks that all of morality can be constructed out of self interest, Hume says that such a view is intuitively implausible, and gives some examples of difficult cases for such a theory to handle: admiring the moral qualities of an adversary, assigning moral praise or blame to historically different acts whose relation to present self interest is not at all clear, and so on. Of course there are responses that can be made on behalf of the views that Hume criticizes, but they look needlessly complex, sophistical and increasingly implausible when compared with his straightforward approach, which is to find the traits that we find agreeable and the traits we find disagreeable and see if they have anything in common. If they do, then that's likely to be the foundation of morals. There is no search for absolute certainty. Not to give away the ending, but the foundation of morals turns out to be shared sentiment. One worry is that it's not as universal as he makes it out to be, but overall, this is about as enjoyable a work of moral philosophy as I've ever read (it's not as much fun as the Republic, but the view is saner).