Critical analysis of David

Hume’s Treaties of Human

Nature

Michał Gomułka
2|Page

“Reason is the slave of all passions” (David Hume). Hume being a skeptic and an

atheist presents a very realistic form of the “good life”. As an empiricist, Hume uses

science and physics as his major weapon to prove his theories. He considers himself a

“pagan” and admires Aristotle. Sentiment and benevolence are his “motto”, where he

sees humanity as naturally loving and thoughtful; filled with social virtues. I will analyze

Hume’s Treaties of Human Nature, Of Virtue and Vice in General, and Of Love and

Hatred presenting proves for reprove and change. I will argue that Hume by saying that

he is an atheist, in his work shows “Christian like character” and his “utopian” idea that

humans are naturally “good” ought to be put to a test. And yes indeed lastly, I will prove

that Hume is a hypocrite who contradicts his ideas, especially with the concept of

“ought”. Thus I’m not aiming to degrade David Hume, but to fill in the gaps which he

has missed while using empiricism as his only method. To analyze Hume in other words

means to catch the bull by his horns and to throw him down on the ground. Seems

impossible to some, but again if reason is slave of all passions then passion is a slave of

all reasons.

Taste, touch, smell, hearing and seeing are five senses which Hume considers as

“reliable”. He is not saying that we “ought” to trust them one hundred percent, but that

they are more realizable then “faith”. “Show me your faith”, Hume would probably ask

with a smirk on his face. Yet I ask: “Mr. Hume show me with the use of all technology

and science that the universe is infinite”. Now we have a problem we cannot. Scientists

“believe” that the universe is infinite, but they cannot physically prove it. Thus I answer

Mr. Hume with a “smirk” on my face: “Show me that the universe is infinite and I will

show you my faith”. Can we really depend on science? Can we really depend on faith?
3|Page

According to Hume knowledge is reducible to experience. I see dark clouds in the sky,

and I know that it will rain. But is it going to rain every time I see dark clouds in the sky?

It might and it might not. If I was to take a sheet of paper and gently blow air on it, the

sheet would move. I cannot see the air, but I can see its effect; moving paper. Thus if I

was to relay on “faith” for example I can argue that you cannot see the physical faith, but

you can see its effects.

“We are social and sociable creatures by nature and that is the end and the

beginning of our ethical inquiries” (MATGL 206). If this was true there would be no need

for therapists and psychiatrists. There are people in this world that are “antisocial” who

hate the world and think that everyone is against them. Was Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon,

Nero, or Jack the Ripper sociable creatures by nature? If I was to say yes I would be

lying. Hume gives us an example of an oak tree which produces a seed which then grows

to another oak tree that falls on the parent oak tree and kills it. Is it murder or a natural

occurrence which could justify “murder”? “Mr. Hume if you are to compare yourself to a

tree go ahead, but I do not think that scientists have proven that trees feel pain or sorrow,

where on the other hand Hume says that pain and sorrow are part of benevolence. It is a

very bad example which in a way degrades the whole concept that reason is a slave of all

passions.

“Now it is evident our passion, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any

such agreement or disagreement; being original facts and realities, complete in

themselves, and implying no reference to other passions, volitions, and actions. It is

impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary

or conformable to reason” (MATGL 208). I “ought” to ask why impossible? I just have
4|Page

one question for Mr. Hume “Is murder good? True or false?” Seems to me if we were to

put Hume’s ideas into action, we would have an anarchical state. “Morality is not based

on reason” (Hume). But what is reason. Webster’s dictionary defines it as a rational

ground or a motive. Would a rational being consider murder as good or bad? Choose life

or death? Alas! It is not the reason who is the slave of all passions, but our “flesh”. I want

this, I need to meet this want, and I want to drink, eat and be merry. I need to fulfill my

wants and desires. Reason is “the law” which makes us aware of the fact what is right and

what is wrong. Without reason we would be like a bunch of wild animals running around

and killing each other. If I would not be told that murder is wrong I wouldn’t know good

from bad. But I do know what is good and what is evil, because I have been told. What

about people who find pleasure in seeing other suffer, die and cry? Not all humans have

the same idea of benevolence as Hume, thus people who are into hurtful fetish or

bestiality for example would be just a small number to prove that Hume was wrong about

the idea that “Humans are sociable creatures”. They enjoy hurting other and the feel no

guilt, it makes them happy. I do not think that Hume took those people into consideration

while writing his “Treaties”.

Hume talks about “sentiment and feelings” that virtue can only be discovered

through them and not through reason. I only will ask to show me, literally show me

sentiment! “Morality, therefore, is more properly felt than judged of; though this feeling

or sentiment is commonly so soft and gentle that we are apt to confound it with an idea,

according to our common custom of taking all things for the same which have any near

resemblance to each other” (MATGL 212). Again it seems to me as if Hume believes in

an existence of a soul because he presumes sentiments and feelings to be a major drive

5|Page

for humans, an essence of life. Thus I would like to see that sentiment if he is able to

show it to me. I presume that we all can agree that you cannot show the “physical” form

of a sentiment and what it is. You can show signs of a sentiment and gestures such as

smile or a hug, but physically you cannot define it. Hume shows us a concept of vice and

virtue. Virtue is good and brings happiness and vices are bad and bring pain. I’m “ought”

to argue what if someone likes pain and it makes him happy to feel pain? Not everyone

thinks like Mr. Hume thus it seems like he is rationalizing only what he sees without

going around the world and seeing what people think or feel. I’m sorry Mr. Hume, but

some people like to be hurt, and it makes them very happy. “Thus we are still brought

back to our first position that virtue is distinguished by the pleasure, and vice by pain”

I’m sorry but it is not so; wrong again. David Hume thinks that everyone else around him

thinks and has the same feelings. I would call that a lock of research or may be he really

was a “Christian” who pretended to be an atheist. If all people would have sympathy

there would be neither world hunger nor wars. Yet it is not so, that is why we live in a

world called by Darwin “survival of the fittest”.

“We may begin with considering anew the nature and force of sympathy. The

minds of all men are similar in their feelings and operations, nor can any one be actuated

by any affection, of which all others are not, in some degree susceptible” (MATGL 214).

The underlined sentence, is it really true? I and any other psychologist and sociologist

will argue no! Eskimos let their guests sleep with their wives as a concept of being

“benevolent” toward each other. And if you don’t it will make them feel bad. In America

when you sleep with another man’s wife and are caught in an act you either run or get

shot. I’m sorry to inform Hume, but not all the people have similar feelings and
6|Page

operations. What about homosexuality? I assume that Hume would say that a man

“ought” to only have sexual relations with a woman. He would say that because all men

that he sees around him have sex with women. Yet there are people who have sex with

the same gender. Not everyone thinks or feels the same as Mr. Hume does. I’m slowly

filling in the gaps, but again it is visible that Hume needs to be corrected in certain areas.

I think that it is the “reason” which made him go “mad”. Or may be he is a slave of

reason because his second name is “passion”. Either way this theory isn’t true and

“ought” to be put to test; humans are not always good and sentimental toward each other.

Benevolence and sentiments make up what Hume calls “morality”. Thus he says

that we cannot use reason to determine what is good or what is bad, but if we depend on

our “inner” feelings we are able to compel a moral way of life. In other words if I go out

and start shooting people around me and it makes me feel good, I’m a moral person. If I

steel every time I go to a store and it makes me proud of myself; I’m a moral person.

“For instance, if all of us were friends, there would be no use for justice either. Justice

and benevolence are thereby distinguished; justice comes in when benevolence runs out.

But can justice be attributed solely to utility?”(MATGL 234). The more I read of Hume I

keep on getting slight flashbacks that he actually might have a Christian perspective in a

way. Although he says that he is an atheist, Hume does have qualities that make it

justifiable to say that he “could” be a Christian. Jesus said “Love your neighbor as

yourself”. This would require that all of us would be friends. Seems as if Hume was

aiming at the same perspective; love. He calls it benevolence and sentiment, I call it faith.

Either way in order for him to create such as state where it would be based on utility

(usefulness) he needs to first make sure that all human beings love each other and are
7|Page

friends. I find myself agreeing with Hume on the fact that utility is the sole foundation of

justice, yet not completely. If morals would be just based upon our feelings, there would

be a great chaos in this world.

“The end of all moral speculations is to teach us our duty, and by proper

representation of the deformity of vice and beauty or virtue, beget correspondent habits,

and engage us to avoid the one, and embrace the other”(MATGL 224). Alas! Our duty! It

is to teach our duty. How will you learn the duty; what is right and what is wrong? You

need a guide. I cannot argue that Hume is being vague on this subject because he does

say that benevolence and sentiments are the guideline. Basically we “ought” to depend on

our feelings to determine if we should kill or not. Again this seems rather idiotic. All the

crazy people would go out and start killing. What is the law? Yes, the law tells you what

you can do and what you cannot do. I know that Hume meant well when he said that all

humans have similar feelings. He was talking about himself and he was a noble man. For

him murder was wrong thus he presumed that everyone else would feel the same. Again

I’m not degrading Hume, just completing what he has missed.

“Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to

any other office than to serve and obey them” (MATGL 220). On page 212 Hume talks

about how many philosophers, especially religions use the word ought and should. He

makes a huge statement about Christianity and the use of ought. You should do this and

this. Yet he himself contradicts himself by using the word ought in his most famous

statement. If I was to say that stealing is wrong, but would do it anyways, people would

call me a hypocrite. Hypocrite is a person who says one thing and does another. Hume is

a hypocrite because he himself uses the word “ought” in his writing and uses it in a way
8|Page

as to confirm his theory. This is just one example where “ought” is used by Hume, I

probably would find many more if I was to read his other works in full.

Utility and Justice are another topic that Hume touches upon. Air and water are

resources that we rarely notice. Money, cars, clothes etc., is what we look for in the world

ruled by the “herd”. Hume says that “usefulness” should determine what is worth and

just. I can only nod my head and say “true” because our values have gone down recently.

People do not see the necessary as necessary anymore, only what brings gratification to

the “flesh”. Thus if we were to put utility on the first place, we could reach a state almost

similar to what Thomas Moore called: Utopia”. If we would treat life as not merely as

means, but ends we would end up with a peaceful state. Hume does underline the fact,

that if all humans would think as he does in a sense of being sentimental and benevolent,

earth would be a much different place.

“Self-love” is what makes us human. If we do not love ourselves how can we love

our neighbor? John the apostle would say “How can you love God if you do not love

your neighbor?” Both of these statements our connected in a way that you cannot have

one without the other, thus favoring love. Kindness, charity, love mercy, etc. are virtues

that Hume says bring out Self-love. He does talk about “false virtues” practiced by the

monks “cardinal virtues”: celibacy, penance, self-denial, and humility. Again I would not

agree with him. If all people would be humble on this earth there be no theft, killing, car

accidents etc. This is just one example. Being vague creates schism. “He continues to

reject the idea that reason is the sole source of morals but he no longer excludes it from

the center of the moral stage”(MATGL 257). He admits finally that reason should be

included in the concept of “morality” It does show benevolence from his side, yet on the
9|Page

other hand weakness his arguments, where he always rejected reason. I guess people

change.

In conclusion Hume does make some great arguments proving that only

empiricism could be used to prove reality. Yet his ideas should be put to a test.

Benevolence and sentiments are not the morals, there is more to morality otherwise

murder and rape would become part of our daily life. He does contradict his ideas

especially with the concept of “ought”. Overall he sees humanity as naturally good and

having the same feelings. This is where he needs to conduct more research. “Excellence,

then, being of these two kinds, intellectual and moral, intellectual excellence owes its

birth and growth mainly to instruction, and so requires time and experience, while moral

excellence is the result of habits or custom and has accordingly in our language received

a name formed by a slight change from the word for customs” (Aristotle).