Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:30:45.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The inertness of reason and Hume’s legacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Elizabeth S. Radcliffe
Elizabeth S. Radcliffe*
Affiliation:
The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA23187-8795, USA
*
*Email: eradcliffe@wm.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hume argues against the seventeenth-century rationalists that reason is impotent to motivate action and to originate morality. Hume's arguments have standardly been considered the foundation for the Humean theory of motivation in contemporary philosophy. The Humean theory alleges that beliefs require independent desires to motivate action. Recently, however, new commentaries allege that Hume's argument concerning the inertness of reason has no bearing on whether beliefs can motivate. These commentaries maintain that for Hume, beliefs about future pleasurable and painful objects on their own can produce the desires that move us to action. First, I show that this reading putsHumeat odds withHumeans, since the latter are committed, not only to the view that beliefs and desires are both necessary to action, but also to the view that beliefs do not produce desires. Second, I review textual, philosophical and historical grounds for my interpretation of Hume's argument for the inertness of reason. I argue that the new line on Hume, while consistent with a certain reading of the Treatise, is not supported by the Dissertation on the Passions and the second Enquiry, where Hume argues that all motivation has an origin in “taste”, which I take to be different from belief. Thus, Hume's arguments do support the contemporary Humean theory of motivation.

Keywords

Humereasonmotivationdesire
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue S1: Hume in Alberta: Selected Papers from the 2012 Hume Conference in Calgary , February 2012 , pp. 117 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1957. Intention Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon 1995. “Practical Tortoise Raising.” Mind 104: 695–711.Google Scholar
Botros, Sophie 2006. Hume, Reason, and Morality: A Legacy of Contradiction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricke, John 1996. Mind & Morality: An Examination of Hume's Moral Psychology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Samuel 1969. “A Discourse Concerning the Unchangeable Obligations of Natural Religion.” In Vol. 1 of British Moralists 1650–1800, edited by Raphael, D. D. 191–225. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cohon, Rachel 2008. Hume's Morality: Feeling and Fabrication. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cudworth, Ralph 1996. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality: With A Treatise of Freewill. Edited by Hutton, Sarah Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René 1989. Passions of the Soul. Translated and edited by Voss, Stephen Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Hubin, Donald C. 1999. “What's Special About Humeanism.” No?s 33: 30–45.Google Scholar
Hume, David 2007. A Dissertation on the Passions. Edited by Beauchamp, Tom L. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Mikael 2000. “Rational Ends: Humean and Non-Humean Considerations.” Sats-Nordic Journal of Philosophy 1: 15–47.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Mikael 2001. “Cognition, Desire and Motivation: ‘Humean’ and ‘Non-Humean’ Considerations.” Sats-Nordic Journal of Philosophy 2: 30–58.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Mikael 2006. “Reason, Passion, and the Influencing Motives of the Will.” In The Blackwell Guide to Hume's Treatise, edited by Traiger, Saul 235–255. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, David W. D. forthcoming. “Reason, Belief and the Passions.” In The Oxford Handbook of David Hume, edited by Russell, P. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pigden, Charles 2009. “If Not Non-Cognitivism, Then What?” In Hume on Motivation and Virtue, edited by Pigden, C. 80–104. Palgrave: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platts, Mark 1979. Ways of Meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Radcliffe, Elizabeth 1999. “Why Beliefs Alone Never Motivate: Hume on the Generation of Motives.” Hume Studies 25: 101–122.Google Scholar
Radcliffe, Elizabeth 2008. “Reason, Morality, and Hume's ‘Active Principles,’: Comments on Rachel Cohon's Hume's Morality.” Hume Studies 34: 269–270.Google Scholar
Searle, John 2001. Rationality in Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael 1994. The Moral Problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael 2004. “Humean Rationality.” In The Oxford Handbook of Rationality, edited by Mele, A. and Rawling, P. 75–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sobel, David and Copp, David 2001. “Against Direction of Fit Accounts of Belief and Desire.” Analysis 61: 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgeon, Nicholas 2015. “Hume on Reason and Passion.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hume's Treatise, edited by Ainslie, Donald and Butler, Annemarie 252–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar