1

I've just started Hume's "A Treatise on Human Nature" and in the first chapter he speaks of a difficulty faced by philosophers, that physical scientists don't face. The problem being that when philosophical hypothesis are to be tested, it's difficult to form experiments. I've left the relevant quote down the bottom of the page.

My question is: do you think Hume would dismiss modern psychological experiments as useless based on the fact that they are inauthentic representations?

Any help, or discussion on the interpretation of this passage would be appreciated :)

"Moral philosophy has, indeed, this peculiar disadvantage, which is not found in natural, that in collecting its experiments, it cannot make them purposely, with premeditation, and after such a manner as to satisfy itself concerning every particular difficulty which may arise. When I am at a loss to know the effects of one body upon another in any situation, I need only put them in that situation, and observe what results from it. But should I endeavour to clear up after the same manner any doubt in moral philosophy, by placing myself in the same case with that which I consider, ’tis evident this reflection and premeditation would so disturb the operation of my natural principles, as must render it impossible to form any just conclusion from the phænomenon. We must therefore glean up our experiments in this science from a cautious observation of human life, and take them as they appear in the common course of the world, by men’s behaviour in company, in affairs, and in their pleasures."

Edit:

After some reflection, I'm really just confused about why Hume writes "in collecting its experiments, it[moral philosophy] cannot make them purposely".

Zinn
  • 111
  • 3
  • 1
    "modern psychological experiments" like, the Milgram experiment, or the Ash experiment ? If so, how are they "inauthentic representations" ? – armand Oct 04 '21 at 10:40
  • "What do you think" questions are off-topic here, and there is no way for us to know what Hume would or would not dismiss when confronted with modern practices. But De Pierris writes, for example, in connection with this passage that Hume "has more in common with the approach to human psychology of a shrewd and compassionate moralist and historian... than with the modern - more properly experimental - approach to psychology that originated in the 19th century and continues today", [Ideas, Evidence, and Method, p. 306](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ideas_Evidence_and_Method/6hYaCAAAQBAJ) – Conifold Oct 04 '21 at 10:54
  • Modern psychology is much more "experimental" that it was in Hume's time... Having said that, Moral philosophy is a subject that is still hard to imagine "to be managed" with experiments. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 04 '21 at 12:03
  • @armand: Asch experiments on men, all white-European ancestry, at university. Original Milgram experiment 65% went to the highest shock. In Poland in a 2017 replication 90% did. That's a massive difference. It's been shown people are good at guessing which psychology experiments won't replicate https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/10/16/want-to-know-whether-a-psychology-study-will-replicate-just-ask-a-bunch-of-people/ & a good case says experiments risk being driven by 'culturally biased folk theories' if not enough theory work https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1 – CriglCragl Oct 04 '21 at 13:21
  • 1
    @criglcragl who cares if Milgram experiment yields 64 or 90% ? The point is its shockingly high. What is the problem if Ash experiment was conducted in a narrow sample as long as it's not used to extrapolate conclusion outside of the sample ? Wouldn't a physicist making an experiment on water and drawing conclusion about all fluids be just as bad? Psychology experiments are difficult for practical, ethical and financial reasons, they require caution an scrutiny, but that does not mean they're inherently bad. – armand Oct 04 '21 at 23:00
  • Also, I was asking the OP in order to clarify their question. – armand Oct 04 '21 at 23:09
  • Those examples of psychological experiments you listed are the types of things I had in mind. To clarify 'inauthentic representation for you: When I read the passage quoted in the question, I took Hume to mean that there's no point in constructing experiments that enquire into human behaviour because when the participant in the experiment is aware he is being examined, his behaviour is affected. – Zinn Oct 05 '21 at 08:15
  • (Above comment was for you @armand) – Zinn Oct 05 '21 at 08:29

3 Answers3

2

"Moral philosophy has, indeed, this peculiar disadvantage, which is not found in natural, that in collecting its experiments, it cannot make them purposely, with premeditation, and after such a manner as to satisfy itself concerning every particular difficulty which may arise. When I am at a loss to know the effects of one body upon another in any situation, I need only put them in that situation, and observe what results from it. But should I endeavour to clear up after the same manner any doubt in moral philosophy, by placing myself in the same case with that which I consider, ’tis evident this reflection and premeditation would so disturb the operation of my natural principles, as must render it impossible to form any just conclusion from the phænomenon. We must therefore glean up our experiments in this science from a cautious observation of human life, and take them as they appear in the common course of the world, by men’s behaviour in company, in affairs, and in their pleasures."

In your quote, Hume's key problem with moral experimentation is:

this reflection and premeditation would so disturb the operation of my natural principles....

In other words, Hume is saying that if he were to personally dabble in moral or immoral acts for the purpose of investigation of morality, the fact that he is doing so in a premeditated way changes the "operation of [his] natural principles." The acts done in such a way are not the same, morally, as the same acts done by people who did not premeditate and reflect on them.

What is Hume not saying here?

  • He's not saying moral experimentation can't be done because it would be unethical. Maybe it is, but that's not his objection here.
  • He's not saying that empirical observation can never shed light on moral matters. In fact he says quite the opposite: "We must therefore glean up our experiments in this science from a cautious observation of human life..." He is explicitly saying that cautious observation can shed light on morality.

The problem he raises is only that a premeditated act for the purpose of investigation has a different morality from the same act done without premeditation for that purpose.

causative
  • 10,452
  • 1
  • 13
  • 45
  • Thanks @causative. Your second dot point almost adresses what I was confused about, but not quite. I'd really like to know whether Hume is meaning that this 'careful observation' can only consist of observations of human's going about their business, unaware they are being observed, or if deliberate experiments (similar to modern day psychological experiments) can be used. – Zinn Oct 05 '21 at 09:19
  • "He's not saying moral experimentation can't be done because it would be unethical. Maybe it is, but that's not his objection here." Are you sure about that? I mean he doesn't directly address that but he jumps straight to imputing himself in the experiment. So as to say he ruled that out already to do it to others. Though yes corrupting the experiment would be the case both for him as a subject and for him as the conductor of the experiment as in both cases he'd not test nature, but enforce his morals maybe already contradicting them – haxor789 Jul 02 '22 at 10:49
0

You ask about psychological experiments, and the quote is about moral philosophy.

Moral philosophy has exactly developed it's experimental methods. Thought experiments, like the whole category of Trolley Problems, and many other examples like Peter Singer's Drowning Child In a Pond. We also have game theory, with experiments that can really be conducted for insights, like versions of the Prisoners Dilemma. These are examples of Practical Moral Philosophy. It's particularly useful for metaethics, and examining moral reasoning processes and moral structures. For instance we can address how biology has interacted with social dynamics that arise from game-like interactions: How do ethicists tackle the question "Is it immoral to have sex in public places?" Is it possible to use rational and empirical ideas to answer?

But as Hume pointed out, you can't get an ought from an is. Experiments can't answer for instance Is artificially generating images of minors in sexual positions unethical? Reasoning, the law, and local culture, all have to be related to what interventions or changes should be made for specific or wider net benefits for society. Analysis & observation, contemplation, pursuasion. But even if research indicated such images weren't harmful, what is considered unacceptable cannot be determined by that alone, because also involved is what kind of people we want to be, and what kind of society. Our whole worldview is involved.

Hume's 'A treatise of human nature: being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects', is considered a pioneering work of experimental psychology, and he anticipated Darwin in various ways like explaining the special social focus of society on women's chastity by regard to men being unable to confirm if children are theirs. We can conclude Hume absolutely would not condemn experimental psychology, but would temper it by regard to the fact that we need practical moral reasoning, towards goals determined by our entire philosophy, of what a meaningful life is and how best to achieve those objectives.

Hume anticipated scientific thinking about morality. But his thinking was deep and incisive enough to still be challenging it now - eg to the lazy scientism of Sam Harris, who assumed morality can be settled by science alone, discussed here: Is Sam Harris's view of morality innovating? What philosophers innovated specifics on morality?

Hume was really one of the deepest thinkers on morality, and should be read closely.

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
  • "You can't get an ought from an is" - Hume didn't say this, he said that "in every system of morality, which [he has] hitherto met with" the author of the system of morality proceeds from is to ought without explanation. He did not claim the is-ought step is not *possible* - simply that philosophers prior to him *had not justified it*. – causative Oct 04 '21 at 13:53
  • @causative: "the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason." He requires *explanation*, be bridge from is to ought, denying ought can follow from is alone: "a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it" – CriglCragl Oct 04 '21 at 14:01
  • 1
    The full quote there is, "[I] am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason." He is saying it would subvert the *vulgar* systems of morality, and he is referring to the distinction of vice and virtue *within* these vulgar systems. He is not denying the possibility entirely - his argument is the idea that these particular vulgar systems of morality are unjustified, not that no justification is possible. – causative Oct 04 '21 at 14:03
  • Supporting that interpretation, the point that he wishes we would give "small attention" to, is the point he previously made about the explanatory gap in the systems of morality that Hume has "hitherto met with" - a point that said nothing about whether the gap is essential to all possible systems of morality. – causative Oct 04 '21 at 14:14
  • Thank you for your answer @CriglCragl. A couple of questions for you in response: 1. In your first sentence, were you implying that I am confusing moral philosophy and psychology and that I have made an error of some kind? (very possibly the case) 2. Are experiments in moral philosophy restricted to thought experiments? For instance, I could easily imagine some psychologist today conducting an experiment that resembles the trolley problem (without the murder obviously). – Zinn Oct 05 '21 at 09:09
  • @Zinn: I was pointing out psychology & morality/moral philosophy certainly don't fully overlap, as your phrasing implies. Psychology is good for metaethical thinking, eg how & why we make decisions. But it can't get at what our morality *should be*. A very close experiment to the classic trolley decision has been conducted https://youtu.be/1sl5KJ69qiA But note, it's real value is in provoking us to investigate our intuitions, about positive & negative responsibility. Game theory experiments can be conducted, & just observed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Real-life_examples – CriglCragl Oct 05 '21 at 13:23
  • @Zinn: You might like this answer, about how the social contract can be understood as resulting from an iterated prisoner's dilemma 'Is the tyrannicide perpetrated by William Tell morally legitimate?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/78788/is-the-tyrannicide-perpetrated-by-william-tell-morally-legitimate/78853#78853 You can't rerun the US war of independence, but you can use a range of tools to understand behaviour, motivations, and which outcomes are unstable. Cultural change can never be a pure predictive science though with double-blind controlled trials, it's case by case. – CriglCragl Oct 05 '21 at 13:39
0

When I am at a loss to know the effects of one body upon another in any situation, I need only put them in that situation, and observe what results from it. But should I endeavour to clear up after the same manner any doubt in moral philosophy, by placing myself in the same case with that which I consider, ’tis evident this reflection and premeditation would so disturb the operation of my natural principles, as must render it impossible to form any just conclusion from the phænomenon

I believe what Hume is saying here is that it is impossible to examine one's own morality through experiment since the contemplation of the morality of each action influences the outcome. It's not possible to act naturally under these conditions.