5 Sympathy
5 Sympathy
5 Sympathy
HUME ON SYMPATHY
In his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, David Hume argues that
at the heart of morality are feelings of approval and disapproval. To say
something is morally wrong is to disapprove of it; to say it is right is to
approve of it. Why do we have these feelings?
Well, let us start with the question of what kinds of thing we approve or
disapprove of. Hume argues that we approve of what someone does, or of
their character, if we find it pleasant or useful to other people. We approve
of what helps people and what makes them happy.
We could think, then, that this is because it is in our self-interest for other
people to behave like this. I approve of what you do because it helps me or
makes me happy. But, Hume argues, this can’t be right. First, we approve
and disapprove of actions that have absolutely no effect on us personally,
e.g. events we read about in the papers happening on the other side of the
world. Second, we can distinguish between what is morally right and what is
in our self-interest. So we don’t always disapprove of something that harms
us, e.g. if you and I apply for a job, and I don’t get it, you do, I don’t
disapprove of your success. Or again, if I need some money, and you get it
for me by stealing it from someone else, I don’t approve of what you’ve
done. Third, we don’t try to persuade people to feel approval or disapproval
for a particular action by considering how it affects them, but for example,
how it hurt or helped someone else.
Of course, sympathy can come into conflict with self-interest, and on many
occasions, self-interest will win. But that’s a different point – it doesn’t
show that we don’t feel sympathy. In fact, it shows that we must, or there
would be no conflict!
in order to pave the way for such a sentiment, and give a proper discernment of its
object, it is often necessary, we find, that much reasoning should precede.
(Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, § I)
What reason does here is not create sympathy where there was none. But it
can appeal to our feeling of sympathy and redirect it. For instance, we can
reason that there is no difference between a child starving in some distant
country and a child starving in our street. And this can motivate us to give
to charity, even though we don’t personally know about the people the
charity helps.
But how serious is this objection? While we can’t say that this person is
irrational, we can still say that they are immoral, cruel, selfish, or
whatever. Is it a stronger criticism that someone acts irrationally than that
they act selfishly?
However, it is true that we cannot argue someone into morality. If
appealing to their sympathy, and then also to their self-interest (since the
two are connected), doesn’t work, then nothing will. But there will be very
few people for whom this doesn’t work. Somebody who is completely
without sympathy will be a sociopath; and we don’t reason with sociopaths,
we either lock them up or treat them as mentally ill! To lack sympathy is to
cease to be fully human in some way.
But is this too quick? Religious people can have great integrity and wisdom,
and through their self-sacrifice can contribute a great deal to the happiness
of others. But, they would argue, it is not possible to keep the integrity,
wisdom and self-sacrifice (since they are useful) and simply get rid of the
idea of self-denial. The connections run too deep.