The sentimentalist approach to ethics proffered by Hume, Smith
1) What distinguishes right from wrong, reason or the passions? Compare the moral philosophies of Kant and Hume in answering this question. Is reason capable of identifying the good alone, or is the good inextricably linked to pleasure? Who has the superior psychology? Who has the superior ethics? Why?
2) The sentimentalist approach to ethics proffered by Hume, Smith, and Rousseau presents a challenge to rational ethics. Despite (or perhaps because of) this, the approach has been influential to many contemporary philosophers. What are the advantages of this approach over those of rationalist theories, such as virtue ethics, contractarianism, or Kantian ethics? What are the faults? Argue either in favor of rationalist ethics or Hume’s anti-rationalistic ethics.
3) Kantian ethics stipulates that the possession of both rationality and autonomy justify the possession of moral rights. Contractarians ground rights in the agreement made between rational agents. Do any things which are not rational have moral rights and do we have any duties towards them? How can these nonconsequentialist theories accommodate for these cases (if they can at all)? Use Kant’s framework to demonstrate our moral duties to non-persons.
4) Kant gives us the Categorical Imperative as the fundamental moral principle. How does this principle compare with Aristotle’s conception of virtue? Which is more important for morality, character or duty? Discuss and critically evaluate both in an argument for the superiority of either Aristotle’s or Kant’s theory. Examine both the principles themselves and the morals which are developed from them. Give examples to demonstrate your understanding of how each can be applied to moral dilemmas.
Sample Solution
Our emotions and impulses, according to moral sentimentalists, play a major role in the anatomy of morality. Some people feel that moral concepts are inherently sentimental, while others believe that moral truths are linked to our sentimental responses, and yet others believe that emotions are the primary source of moral knowledge. All of these things are believed by some. On the one hand, sentimentalism appeals to those who want to make sense of the practical aspects of morality, and on the other, it appeals to those who want to find a place for morality within a naturalistic worldview. The corresponding difficulties are accounting for morality’s apparent objectivity and normativity. Recent psychology theories highlighting the importance of emotion in moral decision-making have reignited interest in sentimentalist ethics.
