Introduction
The purpose of this article is simply to
explain the empiricist conception of ethics and its proximity to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This will start first
with an approach to the design ethic J.Locke and secondly analyze
the ethical conception of Hume called "moral emotivism". In order
to link the two authors with the gestation of the first
declarations of human rights leading to the now known Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. So without the contributions of
these empiricist philosophers would be difficult to conceive the
UDHR as we understand it
today.
The J. ethical
theory Locke
Locke has not left
us any writings on morality strictly. We know from the "Essay
Concerning Human Understanding," which was in favor of the
rationality of ethics, saying that that can not propose any moral
rule of not having to give a reason, the reason of such rules
should be your useful for the preservation of society and the
public good, and therefore, that the disparity of moral rules
followed in the different groups into which humanity would have
to isolate and recommend that manifest truly efficient to carry
to achieve this goal.
In his "Essay
Concerning Human Understanding" asserts that moral ideas derived
from sense experience, but these relations are such that
"morality can be demonstrated, as well as mathematics." The
propositions of morality can be captured as indubitable truths by
a simple examination of the terms containing and ideas expressed
by those terms. What are the key moral terms? The good and the
bad. Good is what causes pleasure or decrease pain, trouble is in
this sense, which causes pain or pleasure decreases. Moral good
is to adapt our actions to a law which sanctions are the rewards
of pleasure and pain punishment, so we can understand that is
influenced by catastemático epicurean pleasure. But
according to this point Locke moral judgments are based on a
rational examination of moral concepts.
Fraile Locke argues that for the general rule is that
you must seek good and avoid or depart from evil. The well is
pleasing and useful and what causes pleasure is evil however
unpleasant and painful. The foundation of moral activity is the
tendency to achieve your wellness.
Morally good or bad in order to
define a law that determines award a penalty or
punishment.
"There is nothing but conformity or opposition is
between our actions and a certain law, conformity or opposition
that draws us toward good or evil for us from the will and power
of the legislature: and this good and this evil is nothing other
than the pleasure or pain, for the determination of the
legislature, accompanying observation or violation of the law,
that is what we call reward or punishment. " Locke, Essay on the
law of nature. There are three kinds of law:
a) The divine law that demands obedience to the
revelation and the precepts of nature.
b) Civil law: required by the legislation, which
defines how innocent or guilty.
c) Public opinion: made by the philosophers, who defined
the vice or virtue. Then I will focus on the analysis of the
ethics of performing JCGarcía Locke Blur. We can say that
for Locke in the development of the ideas of good and bad weather
affects the environment and customs of different countries. Locke
grants from the moment a lot of importance to the practical
principles. The Book I of the Essay Concerning Human
Understanding is devoted to criticism of innate notions. His
first chapter considers the innate principles in general but
speculative concerns. In the next chapter defends the thesis that
there is no innate principles and the third deals with the idea
of ??God, denying the innate character of the rule that says you
have to obey God. In addressing the general issue of the
practical principles states: "the practical principles are far
from being universally welcomed and will be difficult to make a
moral rule intended to have immediate assent general. Moral
principles are not innate. " Criticism of the alleged universal
validity of the principles begins by invoking the testimony of
the experience: "to see if there are moral principles in which
all men agree apparently I stand any moderately knowledgeable
about the history where there is a practical truth universally
accepted without doubt or hesitation, as it should be if morality
was innate? To prove that morality is not innate Locke provides
three arguments are:
1.-The justice and the enforcement of contracts is
something that seems to be a consensus even among criminals. But
if the ruffians abide by the rules not have received them as
innate laws but rather seen as the rules for their own
convenience, because they themselves have met self-interest in
that abide these rules.
"Justice and fidelity are common bonds of society and
therefore to the outlaws have to accept them, because otherwise
they could not stay together. But how dare anyone say that those
who live fraud and rapine have innate principles of loyalty and
justice? ".
Locke seems very strange that the
practical principles are purely contemplative, because these
principles are operational purposes and must produce under
actions. The desire for happiness and misfortune rejection is
something that influences the actions of all people, but this is
not true impressions on the understanding, but appetite
inclinations.
2. – The second argument in favor of providing that
moral rules are acquired and not innate or self-evident, is that
it is always possible and demand their legitimate right, even if
it has often been presented as gold standard all morality: "Act
like you want someone else to behave with you." This rule is
presented as derived from the most different reasons, a
philosopher derived from human dignity, a Christian from the
divine. But Locke certainly what makes this rule is
unquestionable usefulness to satisfy the desire for happiness and
avoid misfortune that nature has placed in us. Virtue is
commendable not because innate, but because it is profitable it
is, virtue is useful. The wide variety of moral precepts due to
different conceptions that men have of happiness. (Utilitarian
conception of morality).
3.-The third argument against nativism in
morality, is that men are practical principles opposed to each
other.
"You can not name any moral principle or rule of virtue
than elsewhere in the world despised and condemned by the custom
of the society that is governed by pragmatic views or opposing
rules of life except absolutely necessary to preserve human
society ". (Essay on Tolerance).
Since each nation has its own moral
precepts than those of other nations, this is enough reason to
show that no morality is innate.
While asserting the existence of natural tendencies in
man distinguishes morality, as if men were allowed to freely
carry these trends morality would be impossible.
Unlike Locke innate law of
natural law, the law is something innately engraved in our mind
from the start and the natural law is something that if ignored
at first, we get to know through the use and exercise of our
natural faculties. Book II of the Essay deals with the simple
ideas we receive by sensation and reflection, pain and pleasure
are analyzed in detail. What you call good cause or increase
pleasure or decrease pain in us, however bad call to what can
cause pain or increase or diminish any pleasure in us. Thus Locke
supports the criterion of hedonism, as a simple statement of fact
natural, clarifying that in speaking of pleasure or pain refers
to both the body and mind. Pleasure and pain are the foundations
upon which rest our passions. Examines the love, hate, sorrow,
joy, hope, fear, despair, anger and envy. Locke says that hatred
and envy are not found in all men, because they are not caused by
pain or pleasure, but contain some considerations about ourselves
and others. But think except anger and envy, all others are found
in all men.
In Chapter 28 of Book II
of the Essay entitled "On other" tells of the agreement or
disagreement between the voluntary actions of man and the
respective standard by which it is judged.
"I think this relationship can be called-moral
relationship, qualifies as our moral acts and I think it should
be examined carefully, because there is no other part of the
knowledge on which we should put as much care to get precise
ideas" . As good or moral evil are regarded as pleasure or pain,
moral good and evil are only the agreement or disagreement
between voluntary actions and any law.
In this sense, morality is reduced to
science of morals, because the vice and virtue of an action
depends on the country or the society in which one lives, in a
country can be considered bad a rule (using burka) and other good
. In their study of the moral relationship (Book II of the
Essay), states that the moral good and evil consists in agreement
or disagreement with any law, the civil law is established by the
community, the law of opinion depends on the country or society
in question, and the divine law is posed as a model judgments of
public opinion. It conceives of man as a loner who can shut
itself and question in search of a practical law itself imposed
by legislative reason, but that man is a social being a community
member and citizen of a State, must learn the world around him
and try to adapt to the world their own natural tendencies, is a
being open to their surrounding reality itself is not
absorbed.
Locke is not interested in individual
ethics why not write a treatise on ethics but their interest is
social, cares about man's relationship with the state and
society, hence the importance attached to political issues. This
political interest shown in his book "Treaties on Civil
Government".
The
first treaty was devoted to criticism of the absolutist theory of
"natural right" of kings, exposed in Filmer's book called "The
Patriarch".
The second treaty contains the positive part of the
Lockean doctrine, your first step consite in exposing what he
meant by political power, which unlike Filmer, distinguishes the
power of love, the lord over his children or servants
respectively.
Political
power is the "right to make laws, including the death penalty,
for the regulation and protection of property, and to use the
power of the community in the implementation of all laws and
defending the state against external aggression and all this only
for the public good. " The state in which men are naturally, is a
state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of
their property and persons whenever they see fit within the
limits of the natural law, not depending on the will of any other
men.
The treaty expresses the
bourgeois ideal of freedom hedonistic, not heroic. Locke versus
Hobbes, who thought that the state of nature was a state of war
of all against all, in which "the man was a wolf to man" thinks
that the state of nature is a state of equality in which the
power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one has more than the
others. The state of nature should be kind and may be, should not
be fierce. But neither, must think that the state of nature is a
garden of Eden in a free game as I thought Rouseeau hedonistic
impulses. According to Locke the natural man "good bourgeois" is
not "the noble savage", before the establishment of the property
as Rousseau conceives. The law implies duty, the state of nature
has a law that requires all none are life threatening or against
another, or against health, or against freedom, or against other
property of another person may not plead freedom to authorize us
to destroy each other. Here we see a precedent for human rights,
as for Locke liberty, health and property would come
inviolable.
For this reason,
each is destined to defend itself and to do so is obliged to
ensure the best interests of humanity, and if not to punish a
wrongdoer, nobody can snatch the other fundamental rights such
as: property, life, liberty or health. But Locke justified
slavery, because the thief or robber will pay his crime being
slave or death.
The war of all
against all is not a necessity, but it is a possibility. One or
more people can use force to get what the natural norm
prohibited. To help men and societies are organized in order to
establish an appeal to ensure that their rights and peaceful
coexistence. So in the state of nature men can exercise power
over others, but it is not absolute or arbitrary power. Besides
the role of government is to reduce bias and violence.
(Executive).
The ethical
theory in Hume
Hume believes that the concepts
of good and evil are not rational but born of a concern for one's
own happiness. So the supreme moral good, is benevolence, which
he defines as a generous concern for the general welfare of
society.
His moral theory has been called
"emotivism". This is an ethical theory according to which the
foundation of moral experience not found in reason but in the
sense that the actions and qualities of people awaken in us. It
is a theory metaethics, ethical or theoretical approach, which
holds that ethical statements, moral judgments are not
informative, but which have only the function of expressing or
arousing feelings or emotions. A moral code is a set of judgments
by which they express approval or disapproval of certain
behavior. The question that arises is: what is the origin and
foundation of morality?, Why certain behaviors approve and reject
others? Two answers have been given to these questions: the first
answer is rooted in Greek thought and Western thought is
configured to maintain the distinction between right and wrong in
the moral order is based on reason.
That morality exists is regarded
by Hume as a matter of fact: everyone makes moral distinctions,
each of us is affected by considerations of right and wrong and,
similarly, we can see in the other distinctions, or behaviors
that derive from such distinctions like. The differences begin
when we asked for the basis of such moral distinctions: moral
judgments are founded in reason so that good and bad are the same
for all human beings? Or are founded on the feeling, the way we
react to the "moral objects" in our human
constitution?
Hume disagrees with this approach
rationalist morality holds that reason can not be the basis of
our moral judgments. If we say that the reason is the source of
moral distinctions, such distinctions should be obtained by one
of two types of knowledge (knowledge of facts or relationships
between ideas). But not so: none of them allows us to obtain the
slightest notion of right and wrong. His reasoning is as
follows:
1) The reason can not determine our behavior.
2) Moral judgments and impede determine our
behavior.
3) Then, moral judgments are not based on
reason.
Regarding Hume defends the first
premise is that our knowledge of facts or relationships between
ideas. Knowledge of the relationships between ideas (logic,
mathematics) can be helpful but life itself compels us not to
apply it. Knowledge of facts and only facts shows us a fact
neither is nor can be a moral judgment.
Regarding the second
premise there is evidence that the adoption of certain behaviors
inclines us to do it and the disapproval of others prevents us
realize them. Finally, the result of Humean reasoning derived
from these two premises is that "moral judgments are not based on
reason," knowledge of the facts, but are based on
sentiment.
The moral intellectualism argues that the
necessary and sufficient condition for moral conduct is
knowledge. Socrates argued that that man is morally good is
necessary and sufficient to know the goodness. This theory seems
contrary to common ideas, because most men seem to accept that
people can be bad even if they know what to do or what is
good.
The moral emotivism is closer to
the concept of common sense and highlights the importance of
emotions in moral life. From an epistemological emotivism is
argued that ethical theory is based on the ethics of Hume, who
maintains that morality is determined by sentiment. But Hume this
means that in every man there is an emotional nature, like that
of any other man, that lets you feel the same way morality. This
allows to speak of a universal morality while emotivism us back
to the particular emotions of everyone.
Hume clearly presents the basic tenets
of moral emotivism and his critique of moral relativism. Start
asking what are the general principles of morality and how much
reason or feeling come into all decisions of praise or blame. He
claims that the reason is a contribution to the utility, with the
beneficial consequences they bring to society and to its
owner.
Reason can help us choose what the
consequences of each action, helpful or harmful, but by itself is
insufficient.
The defending Humean argument
that morality is a matter of feelings Hume explained in Appendix
1 of his "Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals." Morality
is a question of fact. If the reason was the foundation of
morality, then morality would have to be a fact or some kind of
relationship between ideas. "The reason can only judge on matters
of fact or relations between those matters of fact. But attempts
to show that morality is a fact: the good or bad character of an
action or quality is not something that is included as an actual
object or property or thing of value and not be a matter of fact,
the character does not appear in the description of the real
properties of the objects that we can see (colors, shapes, etc.).
"
Neither the good or bad
character of an action is a property of relationship. When we do
not know the circumstances of an action, suspend judgment once
known but not the reason that judges but the heart, the emotion,
the feeling.
Moreover, the ultimate ends of human
actions are not dependent on reason but of feeling. The reason is
incapable of ultimate ends, the media only shows us that we can
use to achieve them but it states that something is ultimate.
Something becomes ultimate when awakened in us a feeling of
pleasure. What is desired in itself, not the dictates of reason,
but the feeling and human affection, pleasure and
pain.
What features does the moral sentiment:-Causes
equity valuation. a) That assessment is independent of our
particular interest is selfless. b) appears to the perception of
the happiness of others or observing how an action or quality is
useful for the happiness of others. c) The moral sentiment is
spontaneous. d) The moral sense refers to the intentions and
character of the people.
There are two areas in our
subjectivity: the realm of reason that is the basis of knowledge
of the world, truth and falsehood, but no cause of action and the
sphere of taste that is the basis of moral experience and
aesthetic that gives us a sense of beauty and deformity, vice and
virtue, creates traits in things that becomes cause of action,
and in the spring or impulse to desire and volition. So for Hume
morality rests on feelings.
In this sense, the basic moral feeling is
that called "humanity", positive feeling for the happiness of
mankind, and resentment of their misery. We call virtuous actions
all actions that arouse in us the feeling, and vices to which
awaken in us the feeling negative.
On the other hand, reason
is incapable of ultimate ends, only shows the means we use to
achieve them without establishing that something is ultimate.
Something becomes ultimate when awakened in us a feeling of
pleasure. We consider a quote from Hume:
"If we can learn from some principle is this, I think it
can be considered true and undeniable: there is nothing in itself
valuable or despicable, desirable or hateful, beautiful or
deformed, but that these attributes arise from the particular
constitution and structure human sentiment and affection. "
(Hume, the skeptic).
This theory seems to lead inevitably
to moral subjectivism and moral relativism. Hume tried to
eliminate these negative consequences, distinguishing different
types of feeling of pleasure and displeasure, establishing
certain conditions that can be identified with the moral
sentiment. As are the following:
a) Moral judgments are not derived from the
facts:
What we call "good" and "bad" can not be considered as
something that constitutes a quality or property of a moral
order. If we analyze moral action and describe the facts, the
properties of the objects involved in the action, but does not
appear anywhere "good" or "bad" as a quality of any of the
objects involved in the action, but as a "feeling" of approval or
disapproval of the events described.
"The reason can judge on a question of fact or about
relationships. Ask yourselves, then, first, where the matter of
fact we here call crime; determinad the time of its existence;
describe its essence or nature; Expose the sense or faculty to
manifesting. resides in the soul of the ungrateful person, that
person must, therefore, feel it and be aware of it. But there is
nothing there, except the passion of ill will or absolute
indifference. " (Enquiry Concerning the Principles of
Morals).
b) Moral judgments are not from relations of
ideas:
If morality is not a matter of fact, that moral
judgments do not refer to what is, but what it should be, there
remains only the possibility that it is a relation of ideas,
knowledge, in which case it should be a relation of the following
type: of resemblance, contrariety, degrees in quality, or
proportions in quantity and number.
In this case we should consider the
"good" and "bad" in the same way, both in human action as the
action of nature and irrational beings, which, of course, we do.
An earthquake with numerous fatalities, an animal incurring
incestuous behavior … none of that makes us judge these
relationships as "good" or "bad", because there is, in
such relationship, basis for the good and the bad. If
evil were a relationship would have to perceive in all these
relationships: but do not perceive it, because it is not there,
says Hume.
c) Morality is based on the feeling:
Reason can not therefore find no basis for moral
distinctions in general or through knowledge of facts or through
knowledge of relationship of ideas, so that morality is not based
on reason. What remains, therefore, based on feeling. "… Even
when the mind operates alone and experiencing the feeling of
condemnation or approval, declare an object deformed and odious,
another beautiful and desirable, even then, I argue that these
qualities are not really in the objects, but belong entirely to
the sentiment of the mind that condemns or praises. " (The
Skeptic)
We therefore consider that something is good or bad,
right or wrong, virtuous or vicious, because no reason or
apprehend any quality captures the moral object, but by the
feeling of pleasure or displeasure, which is generated in us to
observe that moral object, according to the characteristics of
human nature. Therefore, no moral valuations depend on a judgment
of reason but of feeling.
What guarantee do we have, then, to agree with others in
such moral judgments, eliminated the possibility that moral
evaluation depends on rational categories, objective, universal?
Is not this theory leads to moral relativism?
Regarding human nature, Hume
believes that common and consistent and that, just as the
establishment of moral distinctions is general guidelines for
regulating the feelings shall also be subject to some regularity.
One such element is the utility consistent, in which Hume find a
cause of moral approval.
The utility, in effect, will be the
foundation of virtues such as benevolence and justice, the
analysis carried out in the second and third sections of the
"Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals":
"It seems a fact that the
circumstance of utility is a source of praise and approval, which
is something that constantly appealed to in all decisions
regarding the merit and the merit of the shares, which is the
sole source of great respect that we give to justice, fidelity,
honor, loyalty and chastity, which is inseparable from all other
social virtues, such as caring, generosity, charity, kindness,
forbearance, pity and moderation, and in a word, which is the
main foundation of moral respect mankind and our neighbors.
"
Hume, "Enquiry Concerning the Principles of
Morals."
To conclude the
ethics of Hume talk of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic
fallacy or also called by guillotine More Hume maintains that it
is not lawful to deduct a "must" from an "is" because of a
descriptive premises is not correct or can logically deduce a
normative conclusion.
Consequently morality for Hume does not address
the scope of being, but of what should be: not intended to
describe what is, but what should be prescribed. But the simple
observation and analysis of the facts can not be deduced never a
moral judgment, which "should be". There is an illegitimate way
of being (the facts) the duty to be (morality). Such illegitimate
step leads to the "naturalistic fallacy", upon which rest
ultimately such arguments.
Conclusions
As we can see the usefulness for Hume
is the foundation of moral values ??such as justice,
humanitarianism, generosity, charity, kindness, forgiveness, pity
and moderation. The source of the rights of man and moral values
??would be for Hume in the utility they produce, we see here a
clear precedent that developed utilitarian Mill, John Stuart
Mill, Bentham and Peter Singer and others, focusing on human
values ??from the general feeling of or social utility that
report.
Both Hume and Locke, both located in
the empiricist approach, conceived as rational moral but as
something that some of the emotions or feelings that certain
things awakened in us.
In Hume and Locke find an attempt justifcar
morality and human rights will be essential for understanding the
UDHR.
Bibliography
-D.HUME. "Treatise of Human Nature" 3.
National Editor. Madrid.1981.
-D.HUME. "Research on human knowledge", New
Library, Madrid 2002.
-D.HUME. "Research on the principles of
morality." Alianza Editorial. Madrid.2006.
-Ferrater Mora. J.: "Dictionary of
Philosophy". Alianza Editorial, Madrid. 1980.
-LOCKE: "Essay Concerning Human
Understanding", National Publishing, London 1980.
-LOCKE: "Essay on Civil Government". Aguilar,
Madrid. 1983.
- PETER-Senger.: "Compendium of Ethics". Alianza
Editorial, Madrid, 2000.
- PETER-Senger.: "Ethics for better living", Ariel,
Barcelana, 2000.
- PETER-Senger.: "One World", Polity Press,
Barcelona, ??2003.
Autor:
Alicia