Introduction
The purpose of this article is simply to explain the empiricist conception of ethics and its proximity to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This will start first with an approach to the design ethic J.Locke and secondly analyze the ethical conception of Hume called "moral emotivism". In order to link the two authors with the gestation of the first declarations of human rights leading to the now known Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So without the contributions of these empiricist philosophers would be difficult to conceive the UDHR as we understand it today.
The J. ethical theory Locke
Locke has not left us any writings on morality strictly. We know from the "Essay Concerning Human Understanding," which was in favor of the rationality of ethics, saying that that can not propose any moral rule of not having to give a reason, the reason of such rules should be your useful for the preservation of society and the public good, and therefore, that the disparity of moral rules followed in the different groups into which humanity would have to isolate and recommend that manifest truly efficient to carry to achieve this goal.
In his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" asserts that moral ideas derived from sense experience, but these relations are such that "morality can be demonstrated, as well as mathematics." The propositions of morality can be captured as indubitable truths by a simple examination of the terms containing and ideas expressed by those terms. What are the key moral terms? The good and the bad. Good is what causes pleasure or decrease pain, trouble is in this sense, which causes pain or pleasure decreases. Moral good is to adapt our actions to a law which sanctions are the rewards of pleasure and pain punishment, so we can understand that is influenced by catastemático epicurean pleasure. But according to this point Locke moral judgments are based on a rational examination of moral concepts.
Fraile Locke argues that for the general rule is that you must seek good and avoid or depart from evil. The well is pleasing and useful and what causes pleasure is evil however unpleasant and painful. The foundation of moral activity is the tendency to achieve your wellness.
Morally good or bad in order to define a law that determines award a penalty or punishment.
"There is nothing but conformity or opposition is between our actions and a certain law, conformity or opposition that draws us toward good or evil for us from the will and power of the legislature: and this good and this evil is nothing other than the pleasure or pain, for the determination of the legislature, accompanying observation or violation of the law, that is what we call reward or punishment. " Locke, Essay on the law of nature. There are three kinds of law:
a) The divine law that demands obedience to the revelation and the precepts of nature.
b) Civil law: required by the legislation, which defines how innocent or guilty.
c) Public opinion: made by the philosophers, who defined the vice or virtue. Then I will focus on the analysis of the ethics of performing JCGarcía Locke Blur. We can say that for Locke in the development of the ideas of good and bad weather affects the environment and customs of different countries. Locke grants from the moment a lot of importance to the practical principles. The Book I of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding is devoted to criticism of innate notions. His first chapter considers the innate principles in general but speculative concerns. In the next chapter defends the thesis that there is no innate principles and the third deals with the idea of ??God, denying the innate character of the rule that says you have to obey God. In addressing the general issue of the practical principles states: "the practical principles are far from being universally welcomed and will be difficult to make a moral rule intended to have immediate assent general. Moral principles are not innate. " Criticism of the alleged universal validity of the principles begins by invoking the testimony of the experience: "to see if there are moral principles in which all men agree apparently I stand any moderately knowledgeable about the history where there is a practical truth universally accepted without doubt or hesitation, as it should be if morality was innate? To prove that morality is not innate Locke provides three arguments are:
1.-The justice and the enforcement of contracts is something that seems to be a consensus even among criminals. But if the ruffians abide by the rules not have received them as innate laws but rather seen as the rules for their own convenience, because they themselves have met self-interest in that abide these rules.
"Justice and fidelity are common bonds of society and therefore to the outlaws have to accept them, because otherwise they could not stay together. But how dare anyone say that those who live fraud and rapine have innate principles of loyalty and justice? ".
Locke seems very strange that the practical principles are purely contemplative, because these principles are operational purposes and must produce under actions. The desire for happiness and misfortune rejection is something that influences the actions of all people, but this is not true impressions on the understanding, but appetite inclinations.
2. – The second argument in favor of providing that moral rules are acquired and not innate or self-evident, is that it is always possible and demand their legitimate right, even if it has often been presented as gold standard all morality: "Act like you want someone else to behave with you." This rule is presented as derived from the most different reasons, a philosopher derived from human dignity, a Christian from the divine. But Locke certainly what makes this rule is unquestionable usefulness to satisfy the desire for happiness and avoid misfortune that nature has placed in us. Virtue is commendable not because innate, but because it is profitable it is, virtue is useful. The wide variety of moral precepts due to different conceptions that men have of happiness. (Utilitarian conception of morality).
3.-The third argument against nativism in morality, is that men are practical principles opposed to each other.
"You can not name any moral principle or rule of virtue than elsewhere in the world despised and condemned by the custom of the society that is governed by pragmatic views or opposing rules of life except absolutely necessary to preserve human society ". (Essay on Tolerance).
Since each nation has its own moral precepts than those of other nations, this is enough reason to show that no morality is innate.
While asserting the existence of natural tendencies in man distinguishes morality, as if men were allowed to freely carry these trends morality would be impossible.
Unlike Locke innate law of natural law, the law is something innately engraved in our mind from the start and the natural law is something that if ignored at first, we get to know through the use and exercise of our natural faculties. Book II of the Essay deals with the simple ideas we receive by sensation and reflection, pain and pleasure are analyzed in detail. What you call good cause or increase pleasure or decrease pain in us, however bad call to what can cause pain or increase or diminish any pleasure in us. Thus Locke supports the criterion of hedonism, as a simple statement of fact natural, clarifying that in speaking of pleasure or pain refers to both the body and mind. Pleasure and pain are the foundations upon which rest our passions. Examines the love, hate, sorrow, joy, hope, fear, despair, anger and envy. Locke says that hatred and envy are not found in all men, because they are not caused by pain or pleasure, but contain some considerations about ourselves and others. But think except anger and envy, all others are found in all men.
In Chapter 28 of Book II of the Essay entitled "On other" tells of the agreement or disagreement between the voluntary actions of man and the respective standard by which it is judged.
"I think this relationship can be called-moral relationship, qualifies as our moral acts and I think it should be examined carefully, because there is no other part of the knowledge on which we should put as much care to get precise ideas" . As good or moral evil are regarded as pleasure or pain, moral good and evil are only the agreement or disagreement between voluntary actions and any law.
In this sense, morality is reduced to science of morals, because the vice and virtue of an action depends on the country or the society in which one lives, in a country can be considered bad a rule (using burka) and other good . In their study of the moral relationship (Book II of the Essay), states that the moral good and evil consists in agreement or disagreement with any law, the civil law is established by the community, the law of opinion depends on the country or society in question, and the divine law is posed as a model judgments of public opinion. It conceives of man as a loner who can shut itself and question in search of a practical law itself imposed by legislative reason, but that man is a social being a community member and citizen of a State, must learn the world around him and try to adapt to the world their own natural tendencies, is a being open to their surrounding reality itself is not absorbed.
Locke is not interested in individual ethics why not write a treatise on ethics but their interest is social, cares about man's relationship with the state and society, hence the importance attached to political issues. This political interest shown in his book "Treaties on Civil Government".
The first treaty was devoted to criticism of the absolutist theory of "natural right" of kings, exposed in Filmer's book called "The Patriarch".
The second treaty contains the positive part of the Lockean doctrine, your first step consite in exposing what he meant by political power, which unlike Filmer, distinguishes the power of love, the lord over his children or servants respectively.
Political power is the "right to make laws, including the death penalty, for the regulation and protection of property, and to use the power of the community in the implementation of all laws and defending the state against external aggression and all this only for the public good. " The state in which men are naturally, is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their property and persons whenever they see fit within the limits of the natural law, not depending on the will of any other men.
The treaty expresses the bourgeois ideal of freedom hedonistic, not heroic. Locke versus Hobbes, who thought that the state of nature was a state of war of all against all, in which "the man was a wolf to man" thinks that the state of nature is a state of equality in which the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one has more than the others. The state of nature should be kind and may be, should not be fierce. But neither, must think that the state of nature is a garden of Eden in a free game as I thought Rouseeau hedonistic impulses. According to Locke the natural man "good bourgeois" is not "the noble savage", before the establishment of the property as Rousseau conceives. The law implies duty, the state of nature has a law that requires all none are life threatening or against another, or against health, or against freedom, or against other property of another person may not plead freedom to authorize us to destroy each other. Here we see a precedent for human rights, as for Locke liberty, health and property would come inviolable.
For this reason, each is destined to defend itself and to do so is obliged to ensure the best interests of humanity, and if not to punish a wrongdoer, nobody can snatch the other fundamental rights such as: property, life, liberty or health. But Locke justified slavery, because the thief or robber will pay his crime being slave or death.
The war of all against all is not a necessity, but it is a possibility. One or more people can use force to get what the natural norm prohibited. To help men and societies are organized in order to establish an appeal to ensure that their rights and peaceful coexistence. So in the state of nature men can exercise power over others, but it is not absolute or arbitrary power. Besides the role of government is to reduce bias and violence. (Executive).
The ethical theory in Hume
Hume believes that the concepts of good and evil are not rational but born of a concern for one's own happiness. So the supreme moral good, is benevolence, which he defines as a generous concern for the general welfare of society.
His moral theory has been called "emotivism". This is an ethical theory according to which the foundation of moral experience not found in reason but in the sense that the actions and qualities of people awaken in us. It is a theory metaethics, ethical or theoretical approach, which holds that ethical statements, moral judgments are not informative, but which have only the function of expressing or arousing feelings or emotions. A moral code is a set of judgments by which they express approval or disapproval of certain behavior. The question that arises is: what is the origin and foundation of morality?, Why certain behaviors approve and reject others? Two answers have been given to these questions: the first answer is rooted in Greek thought and Western thought is configured to maintain the distinction between right and wrong in the moral order is based on reason.
That morality exists is regarded by Hume as a matter of fact: everyone makes moral distinctions, each of us is affected by considerations of right and wrong and, similarly, we can see in the other distinctions, or behaviors that derive from such distinctions like. The differences begin when we asked for the basis of such moral distinctions: moral judgments are founded in reason so that good and bad are the same for all human beings? Or are founded on the feeling, the way we react to the "moral objects" in our human constitution?
Hume disagrees with this approach rationalist morality holds that reason can not be the basis of our moral judgments. If we say that the reason is the source of moral distinctions, such distinctions should be obtained by one of two types of knowledge (knowledge of facts or relationships between ideas). But not so: none of them allows us to obtain the slightest notion of right and wrong. His reasoning is as follows:
1) The reason can not determine our behavior.
2) Moral judgments and impede determine our behavior.
3) Then, moral judgments are not based on reason.
Regarding Hume defends the first premise is that our knowledge of facts or relationships between ideas. Knowledge of the relationships between ideas (logic, mathematics) can be helpful but life itself compels us not to apply it. Knowledge of facts and only facts shows us a fact neither is nor can be a moral judgment.
Regarding the second premise there is evidence that the adoption of certain behaviors inclines us to do it and the disapproval of others prevents us realize them. Finally, the result of Humean reasoning derived from these two premises is that "moral judgments are not based on reason," knowledge of the facts, but are based on sentiment.
The moral intellectualism argues that the necessary and sufficient condition for moral conduct is knowledge. Socrates argued that that man is morally good is necessary and sufficient to know the goodness. This theory seems contrary to common ideas, because most men seem to accept that people can be bad even if they know what to do or what is good.
The moral emotivism is closer to the concept of common sense and highlights the importance of emotions in moral life. From an epistemological emotivism is argued that ethical theory is based on the ethics of Hume, who maintains that morality is determined by sentiment. But Hume this means that in every man there is an emotional nature, like that of any other man, that lets you feel the same way morality. This allows to speak of a universal morality while emotivism us back to the particular emotions of everyone.
Hume clearly presents the basic tenets of moral emotivism and his critique of moral relativism. Start asking what are the general principles of morality and how much reason or feeling come into all decisions of praise or blame. He claims that the reason is a contribution to the utility, with the beneficial consequences they bring to society and to its owner.
Reason can help us choose what the consequences of each action, helpful or harmful, but by itself is insufficient.
The defending Humean argument that morality is a matter of feelings Hume explained in Appendix 1 of his "Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals." Morality is a question of fact. If the reason was the foundation of morality, then morality would have to be a fact or some kind of relationship between ideas. "The reason can only judge on matters of fact or relations between those matters of fact. But attempts to show that morality is a fact: the good or bad character of an action or quality is not something that is included as an actual object or property or thing of value and not be a matter of fact, the character does not appear in the description of the real properties of the objects that we can see (colors, shapes, etc.). "
Neither the good or bad character of an action is a property of relationship. When we do not know the circumstances of an action, suspend judgment once known but not the reason that judges but the heart, the emotion, the feeling.
Moreover, the ultimate ends of human actions are not dependent on reason but of feeling. The reason is incapable of ultimate ends, the media only shows us that we can use to achieve them but it states that something is ultimate. Something becomes ultimate when awakened in us a feeling of pleasure. What is desired in itself, not the dictates of reason, but the feeling and human affection, pleasure and pain.
What features does the moral sentiment:-Causes equity valuation. a) That assessment is independent of our particular interest is selfless. b) appears to the perception of the happiness of others or observing how an action or quality is useful for the happiness of others. c) The moral sentiment is spontaneous. d) The moral sense refers to the intentions and character of the people.
There are two areas in our subjectivity: the realm of reason that is the basis of knowledge of the world, truth and falsehood, but no cause of action and the sphere of taste that is the basis of moral experience and aesthetic that gives us a sense of beauty and deformity, vice and virtue, creates traits in things that becomes cause of action, and in the spring or impulse to desire and volition. So for Hume morality rests on feelings.
In this sense, the basic moral feeling is that called "humanity", positive feeling for the happiness of mankind, and resentment of their misery. We call virtuous actions all actions that arouse in us the feeling, and vices to which awaken in us the feeling negative.
On the other hand, reason is incapable of ultimate ends, only shows the means we use to achieve them without establishing that something is ultimate. Something becomes ultimate when awakened in us a feeling of pleasure. We consider a quote from Hume:
"If we can learn from some principle is this, I think it can be considered true and undeniable: there is nothing in itself valuable or despicable, desirable or hateful, beautiful or deformed, but that these attributes arise from the particular constitution and structure human sentiment and affection. " (Hume, the skeptic).
This theory seems to lead inevitably to moral subjectivism and moral relativism. Hume tried to eliminate these negative consequences, distinguishing different types of feeling of pleasure and displeasure, establishing certain conditions that can be identified with the moral sentiment. As are the following:
a) Moral judgments are not derived from the facts:
What we call "good" and "bad" can not be considered as something that constitutes a quality or property of a moral order. If we analyze moral action and describe the facts, the properties of the objects involved in the action, but does not appear anywhere "good" or "bad" as a quality of any of the objects involved in the action, but as a "feeling" of approval or disapproval of the events described.
"The reason can judge on a question of fact or about relationships. Ask yourselves, then, first, where the matter of fact we here call crime; determinad the time of its existence; describe its essence or nature; Expose the sense or faculty to manifesting. resides in the soul of the ungrateful person, that person must, therefore, feel it and be aware of it. But there is nothing there, except the passion of ill will or absolute indifference. " (Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals).
b) Moral judgments are not from relations of ideas:
If morality is not a matter of fact, that moral judgments do not refer to what is, but what it should be, there remains only the possibility that it is a relation of ideas, knowledge, in which case it should be a relation of the following type: of resemblance, contrariety, degrees in quality, or proportions in quantity and number.
In this case we should consider the "good" and "bad" in the same way, both in human action as the action of nature and irrational beings, which, of course, we do. An earthquake with numerous fatalities, an animal incurring incestuous behavior … none of that makes us judge these relationships as "good" or "bad", because there is, in
such relationship, basis for the good and the bad. If evil were a relationship would have to perceive in all these relationships: but do not perceive it, because it is not there, says Hume.
c) Morality is based on the feeling:
Reason can not therefore find no basis for moral distinctions in general or through knowledge of facts or through knowledge of relationship of ideas, so that morality is not based on reason. What remains, therefore, based on feeling. "… Even when the mind operates alone and experiencing the feeling of condemnation or approval, declare an object deformed and odious, another beautiful and desirable, even then, I argue that these qualities are not really in the objects, but belong entirely to the sentiment of the mind that condemns or praises. " (The Skeptic)
We therefore consider that something is good or bad, right or wrong, virtuous or vicious, because no reason or apprehend any quality captures the moral object, but by the feeling of pleasure or displeasure, which is generated in us to observe that moral object, according to the characteristics of human nature. Therefore, no moral valuations depend on a judgment of reason but of feeling.
What guarantee do we have, then, to agree with others in such moral judgments, eliminated the possibility that moral evaluation depends on rational categories, objective, universal? Is not this theory leads to moral relativism?
Regarding human nature, Hume believes that common and consistent and that, just as the establishment of moral distinctions is general guidelines for regulating the feelings shall also be subject to some regularity. One such element is the utility consistent, in which Hume find a cause of moral approval.
The utility, in effect, will be the foundation of virtues such as benevolence and justice, the analysis carried out in the second and third sections of the "Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals":
"It seems a fact that the circumstance of utility is a source of praise and approval, which is something that constantly appealed to in all decisions regarding the merit and the merit of the shares, which is the sole source of great respect that we give to justice, fidelity, honor, loyalty and chastity, which is inseparable from all other social virtues, such as caring, generosity, charity, kindness, forbearance, pity and moderation, and in a word, which is the main foundation of moral respect mankind and our neighbors. "
Hume, "Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals."
To conclude the ethics of Hume talk of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy or also called by guillotine More Hume maintains that it is not lawful to deduct a "must" from an "is" because of a descriptive premises is not correct or can logically deduce a normative conclusion.
Consequently morality for Hume does not address the scope of being, but of what should be: not intended to describe what is, but what should be prescribed. But the simple observation and analysis of the facts can not be deduced never a moral judgment, which "should be". There is an illegitimate way of being (the facts) the duty to be (morality). Such illegitimate step leads to the "naturalistic fallacy", upon which rest ultimately such arguments.
Conclusions
As we can see the usefulness for Hume is the foundation of moral values ??such as justice, humanitarianism, generosity, charity, kindness, forgiveness, pity and moderation. The source of the rights of man and moral values ??would be for Hume in the utility they produce, we see here a clear precedent that developed utilitarian Mill, John Stuart Mill, Bentham and Peter Singer and others, focusing on human values ??from the general feeling of or social utility that report.
Both Hume and Locke, both located in the empiricist approach, conceived as rational moral but as something that some of the emotions or feelings that certain things awakened in us.
In Hume and Locke find an attempt justifcar morality and human rights will be essential for understanding the UDHR.
Bibliography
-D.HUME. "Treatise of Human Nature" 3. National Editor. Madrid.1981.
-D.HUME. "Research on human knowledge", New Library, Madrid 2002.
-D.HUME. "Research on the principles of morality." Alianza Editorial. Madrid.2006.
-Ferrater Mora. J.: "Dictionary of Philosophy". Alianza Editorial, Madrid. 1980.
-LOCKE: "Essay Concerning Human Understanding", National Publishing, London 1980.
-LOCKE: "Essay on Civil Government". Aguilar, Madrid. 1983.
- PETER-Senger.: "Compendium of Ethics". Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2000.
- PETER-Senger.: "Ethics for better living", Ariel, Barcelana, 2000.
- PETER-Senger.: "One World", Polity Press, Barcelona, ??2003.
Autor:
Alicia