Hume and Mill: Naturalists in Ethics

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course Number and Title
Date
Philosophy Paper
Why both Hume and Mill are generally considered to be naturalists in ethics?
As naturalistic ethicists, Hume and Mill are often categorized as believing that moral principles can be derived from natural facts. Hume argued that human emotions and desires are natural and measurable events and are the sources of moral principles. According to Hume, moral ideas like goodness and evil can be defined by considering how naturally inclined we are to support some decisions while rejecting others. In addition, according to Hume, our moral decisions are predicated on our intrinsic capacity for empathy and concern for the well-being of others.
According to Mill, morality is based on people's desire for enjoyment and dislike of suffering. According to his argument, moral principles that promote the greatest level of contentment for most people are grounded in real-world knowledge about human nature and our surroundings. According to Mill, scientific research and hypothesis testing may be used to ascertain these foundations.
A comparative analysis of Hume's anti-realism and Mill's realism in ethical theory
Although Hume and Mill are renowned for their impactful ethical theories, their views on the truthfulness of true moral facts and the social standing of ethical claims diverge considerably. As a result, Hume is categorized as an anti-realist or non-cognitivist in ethics, while Mill is typically considered a realist. Hume's empirical philosophy, which holds that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience, forms the foundation of his ethical theory. He argued that moral judgments were not founded on reason but on sensibility or passion, and he denied that explanation alone was enough to prove absolute principles. Rather than reflecting objective truths about the universe, Hume claimed that ethical assertions reflected personal beliefs and choices. As a result of his denial of the notion that moral assertions have rightness and can be determined to be true or untrue, he is regarded as an anti-realist or non-cognitivist in ethics.
On the other hand, Mill's ethical theory, utilitarianism, departs from Hume's viewpoint since it is founded on the idea that deeds are judged morally correct or based purely on whether they increase the greatest standard of joy among the largest number of people. According to Mill, the morality of a proposition can be inferred from reason, who also thought that ethics exhibit excellent the world's underlying reality. As a result, moral realism is seen to be an expression of Mill's utilitarianism, which presupposes the possibility of actual moral truths that the logical inquiry may discover.
How do Hume and Mill differ in their respective accounts of normativity in ethics?
Regarding moral philosophy, Hume and Mill are notable figures who present contrasting accounts of normativity in ethics. Hume's distinction between "is" and "ought" is key to understanding how universalism works. According to Hume, moral conclusions cannot be drawn rationally from statements of fact. Suggesting that something's existence in a certain way does not automatically entail that it should remain that way. Hume contends that sensibility or emotion, not logical or rational thought, is the source of moral judgments. Human emotion shapes moral standards rather than being an intrinsic property of the environment.
While utilitarianism holds that perhaps the right course...