The descriptive Humean view maintains that people make moral judgements based on emotion and intuition (Haidt, 47). It suggests that if making moral judgements is not based on reason alone, then reason is a servant of emotion. Moral judgements are not made from reason alone. Therefore, reason is a servant of emotion. With respect to what makes actions moral or immoral, Haidt asserts that moral acts are actions that do not cause self-harm or harm to others (44). That being said, in this essay I will argue that the Humean view of moral reasoning is correct. I will then present three criticisms against my argument and respond to them.
The Humean view can also be understood through the example of a man stealing medicine for his sick wife, as she will die without it. From a rational stand point, it would appear that this action is immoral on the…show more content… This is evident in the example of Damsio’s patients who suffered damage from a certain part of their brain. As a result, they were unable to feel any emotions at all. Although, they were able to distinguish moral acts from immoral ones, they were incapable of making good decisions in their personal lives. Damasio maintained that his patients’ lack of emotion’s denied them the ability to think rationally. Therefore, this shuts down the claim that this Humean view is incorrect, as the presence of their emotions would have allowed them to make better moral decisions. (Haidt, 39-40).
In essence, I have proved in this essay that the descriptive Humean view of moral reasoning is correct on the grounds that, if there exists moral dumbfounding, then humans make moral judgements based on emotion and intuition. I have provided examples of instances where people made decisions in accordance with the Humean view. I also considered three objections against the Humean view and refuted
