Hume's And Rachel's Philosophical Arguments Writing (Essay Sample)

Hume’s And Rachel’s Philosophical Arguments
Date
Grade Course:
Tutor’s Name:
Date:
Hume’s And Rachel’s Philosophical Argument
The book “vice and virtue in everyday life morality and self-interest” presents Hume’s and Rachel’s philosophical argument on moral perspectives (Sommers & Sommers, 1997). Hume raises an argument that moral are simply sentiment deliverances. He further argues that certain feelings help us to recognize the moral good and evil. Such are either the discomforting displeasure that leads to moral disapproval or the calm pleasure that is as a result of moral approval. These feelings are as a result of contemplation in oneself about a particular character trait or even some biased or incorrect perspectives. Hume argues that the traits which are abilities, motives or feelings that attract our approval are only those that are agreeable to one. On the other hand traits that elicit one’s disapproval are the unacceptable ones.
According to Hume, the acceptable traits are regarded as “virtues” while the unacceptable one are termed as “vices.” In his argument all humans have the same moral feelings such that if all adopt a common view we all would agree in the disapprovals and approvals we make. The human sentiments of moral disapproval and approval are dependent on sympathy. This allows sharing of another person’s feelings. He further proposes that not only human are sympathetic but also nonhuman animals share in this fundamental of morality. I agree with Hume on feelings but disagree with the proposition that animals share in this sympathy rule. However, it is true that feelings are triggered by one’s evaluation on the character traits of a particular individual. This propagates either approval or disapproval of issues regarding the individual.
Rachel also raises a philosophical argument in a way that he defines a kind of psychological egoism (Sommers & Sommers, 1997). This stipulates that all men are selfish not only in few things but in all they do. He went further to argue that the motive that governs all people is one of self-interest. Ethical egoism is the center of human acts in that they have no obligation to do anything that doesn’t serve their interest. Rachel proposes a hypothetical example of smith who abandons a trip so as to help a friend with studies to present his view that people should embrace unselfishness. However, this claim from the psychological egoist perspective might not be the case. This triggers an argument that for one to be described as unselfish, the person must act willingly and voluntarily.
Thus for smith’s case there is a possibility that he never wanted to go for the trip and that’s why he chose to help his friend. Rachel disagree with this claim and asserts that it should never be taken with seriousness since it draws an assumption that people only do what pleases them. This argument doesn’t hold since all men canâ€...