Philosophy
Applicants: Undergraduates
What is Philosophy?
David
Hume: The Scottish Philosopher
'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. 'Tis not contrary to reason for me to chuse my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of... [a] person unknown to me.'
Many philosophers, since Plato to the present day, have argued that
human beings ought to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
However, Hume famously argued that reason itself could never motivate
us to act and, further, that it could not oppose the only true motive
of the will, our desires, or what Hume calls the passions. According
to Hume, the role of reason is merely to aid us in satisfying our
desires. Reason he says is merely the "slave of the passions"
and can do more than "serve and obey them".
If Hume is correct, it seems our desires themselves could never
be unreasonable. Even if I have to choose between the total
destruction of the world and scratching my finger, it is perfectly
reasonable to choose to scratch my finger providing that this is
what I find most desirable. Suppose, given this choice, I do choose
to scratch my finger? Can it be shown that I am being unreasonable?