Explanation Of Virtue, Sentiment And Reason, By David Hume

When going about making moral decisions, should one employ reason, sentiment, or both? David Hume, a recognized empiricist and skeptic, would argue we need to utilize both. When describing morality, Hume says that “If any material circumstance be yet unknown or doubtful, we must first employ our inquirer intellectual faculties to assure us of it; and must suspend for a time all moral decision or sentiment” (135). In other words, Hume is saying that before one makes a judgment of morality, one must temporarily set aside emotion, and first gather all facts. This involves “that nice distinctions be made, just conclusions be drawn, distant comparisons formed, complicated relations examined, and general facts fixed and ascertained” (133). Only through the initial application of reason, unclouded by sentiment, can one determine morality.
Reason, Hume explains, is empirically based.
To fully understand what Hume means by reason, he begins by discussing “relations of ideas” and “matters of fact” Relations of ideas are a priori, meaning they are statements that are independent of experience. Consider the following statements: Octagons have 8 sides; All brothers are male; 3+5=8. These are all “relations of ideas”. Hume argues that this type of statement cannot be what our reason and knowledge are based on because this knowledge has no basis in past or experience and therefore cannot guide us in the future. Hume calls this type of reason “matters of fact”. The reason Hume identifies is a posteriori, meaning that it can be known only after the fact. One can only judge morality after they have first gathered all the evidence and information about the
situation. If the first way to judge morality is through reason, why does Hume emphasize that sentiment ultimately controls morality? Hume asserts that “reason in itself does not provide a spring of action forces us to conclude that is cannot be the source of moral conduct” (133). By this, Hume means that reason only allows one draw conclusions and make inferences; it does not motivate action. Therefore, “reason is incapable of being the source or morality”(135) and that “it is requisite to employ much reasoning, in order to feel the proper sentiment” (133). To summarize, one makes judgments about morality based on reason and is then motivated and acts upon morality based on emotions. It is a sequential relationship. What kind of leader would Hume consider to be good and moral? A leader who employs both reason and sentiment. In the end, Hume asserts “What is honorable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it”(133) and this cannot be done by reason alone. In contrast, John Tierney, author of “Empathy May Be Overrated in an Election, and in a Leader”, says that the best leaders “use rational means to achieve good ends”. He begins his argument describing how, conventionally, people believe that a “good candidate must be able to feel your pain”. This idea of an emotionally charged leader parallels Hume’s emphasis on sentiment, but what Tierney shortly reveals is that empathy, and feelings, may not be valuable. Where Tierney and Hume fundamentally disagree on is what decides morality. One of Tierney’s justifications of why empathy useless is because everyone has different ideas of what is right and wrong, good and bad, important and insignificant, and ultimately, what is moral and immoral. Whether someone is empathetic or not doesn't matter to everyone. It is not a universal trait people look for in a leader, according to Tierney. To prove his point, he explains that “Donald J. Trump, who brags that he’s so rich he feels no pain at all, has trounced Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who emphasized his family’s financial struggles, and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, known for comforting rally attendees with hugs.” It is clear to Tierney that characteristics like empathy don't appeal to everyone. He furthers his argument by saying that “A candidate often wins despite an opponent who receives higher marks in polls asking how much each “cares about the needs and problems of people like you.” In sharp contrast, Hume claims that all of mankind strives for the great social virtue of benevolence. He says that “ No qualities are more entitled to the general goodwill and approbation on mankind than beneficence and humanity, friendship and gratitude, natural affection public spirit, or whatever proceeds from a tender sympathy with others, and a generous concern for our kind and species” (136). Every person, in Hume’s opinion, looks up to someone who embodies the qualities previously stated. Therefore, how can anyone cherish and praise someone who is detached and uncaring? And how can that person be moral if they do not have empathy?