How could one critically analyze David Hume’s argument for the conclusion that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In arguing that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them,” the British (actually, Scottish, an important distinction for those of Scottish heritage) philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) was advancing his seminal theory that human decision-making cannot be divorced from the underlying emotions and prejudices that people bring to any given issue.  While Hume could be said to have overstated his case significantly – after all, cognizance of one’s preexisting beliefs can mitigate the influence those beliefs have on decisions – his contribution to the advancement of modern thought cannot be overstated.  In advancing his argument, however, he was simply drawing attention to what he believed was the fallacy advanced by others...

(The entire section contains 391 words.)

Unlock This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Start your 48-Hour Free Trial

Already a member? Log in here.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team

Posted on