Session #33 - Emotivism: Can pure rationality exist?

“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”
― A Treatise of Human Nature - David Hume

Session in english! Also available on consciouspass.com for Karma Points.

Hume was a philosopher at the height of the Scottish Enlightenment, when reason was being turned on everything — nature, religion, the mind itself. Applied rigorously enough, it turned on itself: he found no "is" that could ground an "ought," (“should”) no fact underneath moral sentiment, no proof behind the leap from past to future that all reasoning about truth depends on. In this session we are going to apply the same thought to our idea of morality and truth, and attempt to figure out what is the basis of our reasoning.
Introduction of guests (15 minutes)
We start with a short introduction of the topic and of the guests

• Name one thing you believe every person is obligated to do, or never do.

Questions (1 hour and 45 minutes)

1. The Is-Ought Problem
   • Where do "oughts”(“should”s) actually come from?
   • Every time we move from a description of what is to a claim about what should be — aren't we smuggling something across a gap that was never bridged?
   • Is that gap permanent, or does it have a solution?

2. Emotivism:

3. are emotions the basis of our morality?

4. Hume’s first punch: isn’t morality just sentiment? Our intuitions dictating our compass? Are emotions ahead of reasoning?
   • Do you agree with the quote: "reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions" - Hume.
   • Is there any decision, conclusion, or thought, that could be reached through reasoning alone, with no prior preference steering which premises you found plausible?
   • If you can't — does that mean pure reasoning doesn't exist, or just that you can't introspect your way to finding it?
   • How should we build our values then? Is morality nothing more than an emotional reaction dressed up as a claim?
   • If it's just emotion, what grounds do we have to enforce something like "don't kill" — how does a society build law on top of a feeling?
   • "We used to think slavery was fine, now we know better" — did our emotions change, or did we evolve?
   • Did we become feminists once it was economically advantageous? Did we become egalitarian once we needed a larger skilled workforce?
   • What if morality is the result of social and material change, not its source?
   • If there's no fact to get closer to, what does it even mean to make a better moral decision?
   • How much of philosophy's history is philosophers reporting their emotional state and intuitions, dressed in the language of truth?
   • Does having emotional stakes in an argument make for sharper philosophy, or worse?
   • Has your emotional state ever shifted your allegiance to a philosophical position — and could you have held that position with the same conviction before the shift?

5. Induction Problem:
   what is the basis of truth
   Hume's second shot: the problem of induction. Moral "ought," it turns out, is emotion in a trench coat. Does "is" hold up any better?
   • No finite set of past observations logically forces a conclusion about the next case — "the sun has risen every day so far" doesn't entail "it will rise tomorrow." That's an inference rule you're applying, not a fact you found. Where did that rule come from, if not the same nowhere the moral rule came from?
   • If calling something "true" is itself a matter of convenience, shouldn't we extend the same treatment to morality — and if so, what would falsification even look like there, the way it does in science?
   • Is the asymmetry between science and morality real, or is it just: science has a fast, legible pushback mechanism (experiment), morality has a slow, illegible one (centuries, revolutions, collapse) — same structure, different clock speed?
   • If you distrust moral intuition because evolution installed it for survival rather than truth, why extend any more trust to logical intuition — "the evidence supports conclusion X"?
   • Truth is usually granted more authority because it's taken to be objective and collective. Should that same logic bind my moral compass to whatever the people around me happen to agree is good?
   Conclusion
   • If neither morality nor our inference to truth can be grounded without circularity, the real question was never "which one is real." It's: which ungrounded thing are you willing to keep using anyway — and why that one, and not the other?
   • Is that a choice we make, or something we're simply issued — morality and truth as inheritance, not decision?

***

RSVP: Please confirm your attendance here on Meetup OR consciouspass.com (get Karma Points for assisting!). In both cases, yield your space to another person in the waiting list.
We welcome donations to keep the costs of the meetup.
If you order food (vegetarian and vegan available), or alcohol-free wines, you dont need to donate for the group. Thank you!