Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 152, Issue 3, pp 353–370 | Cite as

Moral internalism and moral cognitivism in Hume’s metaethics

  • Elizabeth S. RadcliffeEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Most naturalists think that the belief/desire model from Hume is the best framework for making sense of motivation. As Smith has argued, given that the cognitive state (belief) and the conative state (desire) are separate on this model, if a moral judgment is cognitive, it could not also be motivating by itself. So, it looks as though Hume and Humeans cannot hold that moral judgments are states of belief (moral cognitivism) and internally motivating (moral internalism). My chief claim is that the details of Hume’s naturalistic philosophy of mind actually allow for a conjunction of these allegedly incompatible views. This thesis is significant, since readers typically have thought that Hume’s view that motivation is not produced by representations, coupled with his view that moral judgments motivate on their own, imply that moral judgments could never take the form of beliefs about, or representations of, the moral (virtue and vice).

Keywords

Cognitivism Hume Internalism Metaethics Morality Motivation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blackburn S. (eds) (1993a). How to be a moral anti-realist. Essays in Quasi-Realism. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackburn S. (eds) (1993b). Morals and modals Essays in Quasi-Realism. Oxford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackburn S. (1998). Ruling Passions. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown C. (1988). Is Hume an internalist?. Journal of the History of Philosophy 26:69–87Google Scholar
  5. Cohon R. (1997). Is Hume a noncognitivist in the motivation argument?. Philosophical Studies 85:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohon, R. (forthcoming). The reality of moral distinctions. In D. Ainslie (Ed.), Hume’s Treatise: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Darwall S. (1983). Impartial Reason. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Darwall S. (1993). Motive and obligation in Hume’s ethics. Nous 27:415–448Google Scholar
  9. Darwall S. (1995). The British Moralists and the Internal ‘Ought’: 1640–1740. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson D. (1976). Hume’s cognitive theory of pride. Journal of Philosophy 73:744–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foot, P. (1978). Hume on moral judgment. In Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy (pp. 74–80). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Garrett D. (1997). Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Hume, D. (1739–1740). L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), A Treatise of Human Nature (2nd ed.) (revised by P.H. Nidditch). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Hume, D. (1739–1740). Norton D. F. & M. Norton (Eds.), A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Hume, D. (1751). L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (3rd ed.) (revised by P. H. Nidditch). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. Hume, D. (1751). T. L. Beauchamp (Ed.), An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. Locke, J. (1690). P. H. Nidditch (Ed.), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  18. Mackie J.L. (1980). Hume’s Moral Theory. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Owen D. (1999). Hume’s Reason. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Radcliffe E.S. (1996). How does the humean sense of duty motivate?. Journal of the History of Philosophy 34:47–70Google Scholar
  21. Radcliffe E.S. (1997). Kantian tunes on a humean instrument: why hume is not really a skeptic about practical reasoning. The Canadian Journal of Philosophy 27:247–269Google Scholar
  22. Sayre-McCord G. (1997). The metaethical problem. Ethics 108:55–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith M. (1994). The Moral Problem. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Traiger S. (1987). Impressions, ideas, and fictions. Hume Studies 13:381–399Google Scholar
  25. Williams, B. (1979). Internal and external reasons. In H. Ross (Ed.), Rational Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Reprinted 1981, Williams, Moral Luck, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations