Everyone in ethics and metaethics knows this quote from Hume:
“Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions”
It's always given as a statement of a Humean theory of motivation - beliefs alone can't motivate, only once coupled with desires.
But do Hume scholars (or ethicists) ever give an explanation of the "ought only to be" part of the quote? It is very curious and seemingly incompatible with the Humean theory of motivation: Why make an ought claim about an action-type which literally can't be violated?
#philosophy #academicchatter #ethics #metaethics
Preston Werner /
npub1h9…lgwgx
2024-03-14 09:37:23
Author Public Key
npub1h9cgph0hgs96qeu5fdwzu4dk527msgwapxrvxktuugg053tw8dasjlgwgxPublished at
2024-03-14 09:37:23Event JSON
{
"id": "a6ab8aa41bcc8bfcdadf88744c19c61c9c31856db1810734603f288832ed66b2",
"pubkey": "b97080ddf7440ba067944b5c2e55b6a2bdb821dd0986c3597ce210fa456e3b7b",
"created_at": 1710409043,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"philosophy"
],
[
"t",
"academicchatter"
],
[
"t",
"ethics"
],
[
"t",
"metaethics"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://fediphilosophy.org/users/pjw/statuses/112093367085072078",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "Everyone in ethics and metaethics knows this quote from Hume: \n“Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions”\n\nIt's always given as a statement of a Humean theory of motivation - beliefs alone can't motivate, only once coupled with desires. \n\nBut do Hume scholars (or ethicists) ever give an explanation of the \"ought only to be\" part of the quote? It is very curious and seemingly incompatible with the Humean theory of motivation: Why make an ought claim about an action-type which literally can't be violated? \n\n#philosophy #academicchatter #ethics #metaethics",
"sig": "b5d3ee755b5fce13bbfef064f4917129ec7d2dd3e280ecf000c2f44b2450c515125c18219092a78587a375829aebc9043af24a0f652f11cdbc15ac31be385e1f"
}