I am trying to analyze the following argument by Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature:

But can there be any difficulty in proving, that vice and virtue are not matters of fact, whose existence we can infer by reason? Take any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it.

I am reconstructing it as:

  • When examining willful murder, we find passions, motives, volitions and thoughts (in the murderer).
  • This is an exhaustive list of the matter of facts of the crime.
  • We did not find “vice” in the matter of facts of the crime.
  • We find a sentiment of disapprobation towards the crime inside ourselves, as a matter of fact.
  • That sentiment is a feeling, not reason.
  • Conclusion: when we say that a murder is vicious, we express a subjective feeling.

However, it seems there is something slightly amiss about the term "vice" itself. It seems the argument actually defines vice in its conclusion (at least in my reconstruction), but that term was used in the third premise already, before being defined. How can we be sure we didn't find "vice" in the matters of fact of the crime, when in fact, what constitutes "vice" is defined later in the argument as a "sentiment of disapprobation"? Hume seems to use an implicit premise that we know how to recognize "vice" when we see it, or at least the absence of "vice" in the matters of fact of the murder, that we have at least some sort of shared intuition of what "vice" is (since we are not finding it). Hume seems to assume we can tell that there is no "vice", and furthermore that we will all agree on that. Should I add that hidden premise to my reconstruction to make the argument more cogent?

My question is really about 1) whether my reconstruction is right or misses that implicit premise about an immediate understanding of "vice"; 2) whether there is a logical defect in the argument, precisely because the term "vice" is used before being properly defined.

  • i think this is a good question, is shows prior work and a willingness to learn etc.. i upvoted! – another_name Apr 15 at 18:09
  • I don't think that there's anything wrong with Hume's use of 'vice'. Of course he doesn't simply define it as 'sentiment of disapprobation'; that would make the argument circular in the worst possible way. Hume is basically inviting the reader to ground the claim that murder is wrong in empirical facts. He then claims that the only empirical facts you're going to find are your feelings of disapproval, and from this he concludes that saying that something is wrong is nothing but an expression of feeling. – Eliran Apr 15 at 21:42
  • @Eliran - how do you know that the "vice entirely escapes you" if you don't already have some kind of idea or intuition of what "vice" is? It seems to me that Hume assumes at least that we can commonly tell that there is no "vice" in the matter of facts under consideration, that is, that we have some intuition for "vice", which makes me a bit uneasy. Was "vice" defined before in the THN? I looked for what he meant by "vice" before, but couldn't find a solid definition. – Frank Apr 15 at 22:52
  • 1
    Eliran gives the charitable interpretation, there is another one. Anscombe in Modern Moral Philosophy argued that Hume is prone to sophistic arguments based on question begging (circular) definitions:"Hume defines "truth" in such a way as to exclude ethical judgments from it, and professes that he has proved that they are so excluded. He also implicitly defines "passion" in such a way that aiming at anything is having a passion... Hume was a mere — brilliant — sophist; and his procedures are certainly sophistical..." – Conifold Apr 16 at 1:45
  • @Conifold - Very interesting reference. It's amazing how this charitable reconstruction business is actually not so straightforward. – Frank Apr 16 at 3:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.