"Reason is a slave to the passions."

Amazing presentation, thanks

Thank you so much I've been looking for a channel like this

Thank you so much! This was so easy to follow along with and understand!

You’re a beast man! Thank you!! 🙏🏻

great explanation 🎉

Extremely interesting explanation, I really found profound your thoughts. Thanks a lot!

Thanks so much for this.  Very clear.

Much appreciated.

awesome lecture way easier to understand than the Wikipedia page

Verry good channel

Very good .

Great to see you back Profesor. I will like to be  profesor like you.

Do you have a study method to learn that much?

amazingly outlined Hume's approach on ethics; reason don't lead to morality.

Awesome - as usual.

Hello sir you are the best professor of ethics department. I am a big fan of your
Sir I requested to you that please make a video upon probity in governance

Hume relates to immediate decisions which do not require deliberations - whereby prescription and reasoning are unavoidable. Kahenman addressed this dichotomy, which I would the professor to mention.

Intent would be needed to connect description with evaluation. Ironically, Hume derives prescription from a description when he says reason ought to be the slave of passions.

However, in my opinion, reason should not remain the slave of passions and feelings. Indeed, a thorough investigation of the latter should reveal the fact that our feelings are the result of our conditioning, mainly of social, cultural and/or religious origins and nature. Then the rational validity of such a conditioning ought to be inquired and questioned—and possibly adjusted or even rejected if deemed necessary by reason.

The claim or argument that "it's just our human nature" that reason must be overruled by feeling when making moral decisions, seems to be more of a philosophical laziness to me than anything else.

In conclusion, while it is true that feelings always tend to precede reason, such feelings can and should be investigated by reason itself, always. For example, why is it wrong to kill or to torture someone for pleasure? According to Hume, well it's firstly because witnessing such an act would make one feel very uncomfortable, angry, or revolted, etc. Now, let us not stop there, but let us investigate instead the rational validity or basis of such a feeling. Let us in other words attempt to find a rational justification for feeling so. I would argue that there must be a number of rational reasons for us to find, which would justify and validate our feeling of disapprobation or repulsion toward homicide or torture for example. One possible reason could be that by tolerating such an act, it could potentially happen to us in the future; or we must have been taught (i.e. conditioned to think) that homicide and torture were wrong because they would most probably lead to an unstable or dangerous society, or an unsustainable life, chaos, death, etc.

Most of us butcher and probably torture animals and living beings every day without being bothered at all. There must be a reason therefore...

Feeling may be the law, but it should still be checked and justified by reason. This issue becomes even more relevant as we witness the dawn of the AI era: Moral sense, although based on feeling, that feeling must have a valid and codifiable rational basis.

I'm not a formal student of philosophy. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it can be reasoned that autonomy is a fact that leads to violence to that 'space' being immoral. I'm not educated enough to say all morals can be factually reasoned but I do believe that person good is sufficient for many morals under the heading of honesty or nonviolence.