David Hume's Copy Principle

1. Explain Hume’s ‘copy principle,’ as described in Section II of the Enquiry (Note that this will involve explaining what Hume means by ‘impressions’ and ‘ideas’). Next, explain the two arguments that Hume offers in favor of the copy principle, and the counterexample he offers against the principle. How does Hume intend to use the copy principle in his philosophical inquiries? Explain the three principles of association or connection between ideas and give examples of each. In the final part of your essay, provide a reasoned evaluation of Hume’s argument or explanation on these topics including some discussion about how Hume might handle the counterexample to the copy principle

Hume’s copy principle functions on the notion that the mind
There are three types of correlation: “resemblance,” “contiguity,” and “cause and effect.” Resemblance is the notion that seeing something that is like our idea, will call to mind the copy that exists in our memory. Contiguity occurs when we have seen something, say a house in a city, then we can have a discussion about the appearance of other houses in the city based on our notion of that single house. Cause and effect is as simple as recalling the pain that occurs when we stub our toe and reflecting on that occurrence.
The purpose of the copy principle, according to Hume, is to provide a reasoned method for removing confusion from philosophical concepts. If we can trace what impression and idea comes from, then we can accept the validity of the idea and proceed with evaluating it. If an idea does not correspond to an impression, then we can reject it as lacking meaning. As Hume says (540) “ideas are faint and obscure” and often convoluted. The copy principle appears to give us a simple way to at least bring ideas into focus and avoid disputes of
Laws have been created, after all, based on some precedence regarding the situations people have been forced into (necessity) and the choices that they have made (free-will). The downside to this sort of evaluation, at least as far as I can see, is contingent upon my perceived gap in Hume’s ideology: how do we determine what the truth is? If we are to hold people accountable for the motivations behind their actions, won’t there be times in which we can justify the worst of human behaviors? If this is the case, then we run the risk of falling into a sort of utilitarian morality trap, in which we justify and allow terrible behaviors to achieve some greater good. Of course, I don’t think that Hume is completely subjectivist in his morality, nor completely in denial of free-will, and is probably trying to find some sort of middle ground between the two. This, I think, is why the doctrines themselves are so important and they answer this previous concern regarding subjectivity of morals. Hume appears to be empowering us not to know the truth, because he himself admits that we are without the faculties to observe the true causes of natural occurrences, but, rather, to discuss and synthesize our observations, exercise our free-will, and then come up with morals that make the most