Did David Humes Present The Moral Ethics Of Man Never Changes?
The scottish philosopher David Hume says that there is a great uniformity among the actions of men in all nation and ages, and that human nature remains the same. Humes expresses that all men regardless of the time being all have ambition, self love, vanity, friendship, generosity, and public spirit. Whether it be from the times of the ancient greeks to the present the moral ethics of man never changes. I agree with David Hume because I do believe that things have remained unchanged because it is basic human nature. If you take a look back in time you would see that the basic human moral ethics never really change. People generally have the same motives when it comes to things like having ambition, self love, friendship, and generosity. If
the human race didn't have these things there could never be a society because there wouldn't be a solid base to create anything. Therefore I believe that David Hume supports moral universalism over moral relativism because moral universalism never changes, as to moral relativism can change based on culture or religion. Moral universalism is the solid bases that never changes because it is human nature. For instance ambition is the single thing drives society because with ambition people have the motivation to build cities and create a society. With generosity people extend an open hand to help others in need because it's the right thing to do, because it is human nature. How ever if it were moral relativism it could be a different because it's based on different views and culture. So for instance if a certain culture did not believe in generosity or ambition because it wouldn't be morally acceptable in their culture they would have a difficult time building a sustainable society, because these morals would go against their human nature and would have to be taught to them.
Therefore I believe that Hume’s view supports moral universalism because he talks about how man's ethics remain the over time because it's human nature. Versus moral relativism is something that someone is almost taught or brought is up in a certain way because it's culturally based, therefore there are different views on things on how someone is raised.
the human race didn't have these things there could never be a society because there wouldn't be a solid base to create anything. Therefore I believe that David Hume supports moral universalism over moral relativism because moral universalism never changes, as to moral relativism can change based on culture or religion. Moral universalism is the solid bases that never changes because it is human nature. For instance ambition is the single thing drives society because with ambition people have the motivation to build cities and create a society. With generosity people extend an open hand to help others in need because it's the right thing to do, because it is human nature. How ever if it were moral relativism it could be a different because it's based on different views and culture. So for instance if a certain culture did not believe in generosity or ambition because it wouldn't be morally acceptable in their culture they would have a difficult time building a sustainable society, because these morals would go against their human nature and would have to be taught to them.
Therefore I believe that Hume’s view supports moral universalism because he talks about how man's ethics remain the over time because it's human nature. Versus moral relativism is something that someone is almost taught or brought is up in a certain way because it's culturally based, therefore there are different views on things on how someone is raised.