David Hume's Argument Against The Goodness Of The Whole
Sometimes religious people say that evil is only evil from our perspective, but from God's perspective, all evil will be turned to a greater good.
Sometimes atheists who believe in evolution (like Richard Dawkins) state that when accidents & unforeseen misfortunes happen, we should keep things in perspective. Without accidents, mistakes, etc. nothing good would have happened. Evolution needs mistakes to produce the good, so, from the perspective of the whole, even the mistakes and accidents are good.
Hume writes:
Can anyone explain how Hume's argument, that such beliefs cannot remove the pain that the one feels, and (presumably) therefore they are not true, follows logically? It simply seems to me that Hume is making no point at all, apart from the trivial one that even if something bad will be good in the long-run, for the whole, it will still be painful in the moment. A vaccine may be good in the long-run, but in the short-term that doesn't mean that it won't be painful... so what is Hume's point?
And what is your position with regards to the basic structures of this argument for the good of the Whole, whether in its theistic or atheistic variant?
Sometimes atheists who believe in evolution (like Richard Dawkins) state that when accidents & unforeseen misfortunes happen, we should keep things in perspective. Without accidents, mistakes, etc. nothing good would have happened. Evolution needs mistakes to produce the good, so, from the perspective of the whole, even the mistakes and accidents are good.
Hume writes:
There are many philosophers who, after an exact scrutiny of all the phenomena of nature, conclude, that the WHOLE, considered as one system, is, in every period of its existence, ordered with perfect benevolence; and that the utmost possible happiness will, in the end, result to all created beings, without any mixture of positive or absolute ill or misery. Every physical ill, say they, makes an essential part of this benevolent system, and could not possibly be removed, even by the Deity himself, considered as a wise agent, without giving entrance to greater ill, or excluding greater good, which will result from it. From this theory, some philosophers, and the ancient Stoics among the rest, derived a topic of consolation under all afflictions, while they taught their pupils that those ills under which they laboured were, in reality, goods to the universe; and that to an enlarged view, which could comprehend the whole system of nature, every event became an object of joy and exultation. But though this topic be specious and sublime, it was soon found in practice weak and ineffectual. You would surely more irritate than appease a man lying under the racking pains of the gout by preaching up to him the rectitude of those general laws, which produced the malignant humours in his body, and led them through the proper canals, to the sinews and nerves, where they now excite such acute torments. These enlarged views may, for a moment, please the imagination of a speculative man, who is placed in ease and security; but neither can they dwell with constancy on his mind, even though undisturbed by the emotions of pain or passion; much less can they maintain their ground when attacked by such powerful antagonists. The affections take a narrower and more natural survey of their object; and by an economy, more suitable to the infirmity of human minds, regard alone the beings around us, and are actuated by such events as appear good or ill to the private system.
The case is the same with moral as with physical ill. It cannot reasonably be supposed, that those remote considerations, which are found of so little efficacy with regard to one, will have a more powerful influence with regard to the other. The mind of man is so formed by nature that, upon the appearance of certain characters, dispositions, and actions, it immediately feels the sentiment of approbation or blame; nor are there any emotions more essential to its frame and constitution. The characters which engage our approbation are chiefly such as contribute to the peace and security of human society; as the characters which excite blame are chiefly such as tend to public detriment and disturbance: whence it may reasonably be presumed, that the moral sentiments arise, either mediately or immediately, from a reflection of these opposite interests. What though philosophical meditations establish a different opinion or conjecture; that everything is right with regard to the WHOLE, and that the qualities, which disturb society, are, in the main, as beneficial, and are as suitable to the primary intention of nature as those which more directly promote its happiness and welfare? Are such remote and uncertain speculations able to counterbalance the sentiments which arise from the natural and immediate view of the objects? A man who is robbed of a considerable sum; does he find his vexation for the loss anywise diminished by these sublime reflections? Why then should his moral resentment against the crime be supposed incompatible with them? Or why should not the acknowledgment of a real distinction between vice and virtue be reconcileable to all speculative systems of philosophy, as well as that of a real distinction between personal beauty and deformity? Both these distinctions are founded in the natural sentiments of the human mind: And these sentiments are not to be controlled or altered by any philosophical theory or speculation whatsoever.
Can anyone explain how Hume's argument, that such beliefs cannot remove the pain that the one feels, and (presumably) therefore they are not true, follows logically? It simply seems to me that Hume is making no point at all, apart from the trivial one that even if something bad will be good in the long-run, for the whole, it will still be painful in the moment. A vaccine may be good in the long-run, but in the short-term that doesn't mean that it won't be painful... so what is Hume's point?
And what is your position with regards to the basic structures of this argument for the good of the Whole, whether in its theistic or atheistic variant?
Comments (35)
There is no argument which can point to the pain of gout being of any purpose or use. But I think that given a world wide point of view there are many more examples of useless and pointless suffering.
Isn't language cool? Specious used to mean beautiful (as in 'having specular quality'), but is now used as a put-down meaning shallow or 'all appearance, no depth'.
Anyway, nothing doing.
In other words, people are bad reasoners (because they have competing passions in their souls). I agree with Hume. But this is clearly no reason to believe that any argument fails. ("People are bad reasoners, therefore, argument X is bad" is, er, bad reasoning).
Sure, in that trivial sense everyone agrees. Hume isn't very deep in that way. He also misses the point that, of course, philosophical knowledge (that the goodness of the whole justifies present evil) does not eliminate the evil, or make the pain less - but it certainly provides a sort of comfort and easier psychological acceptance of the situation.
Quoting charleton
Yes, it can be argued, for example, that the pain and possibility of gout were necessary in order for us to exist in the first place as a result of evolution (on a purely naturalistic/atheistic view). So if you are thankful for other things in life, then you have to accept the possibility of gout and the associated pain as well.
That gets the silly post of the week award. I'm not talking about s stubbed toe or a paper cut. Gout is is pain beyond reason. That's why I made the comment.
I think Hume has specifically in mind arguments where the good can only be speculatively assumed, not those where the good is well understood, such as a vaccination. To this end, note the following phrase in the second paragraph: 'such remote and uncertain speculations'.
Expectation of immunity from polio after a vaccination is not a remote and uncertain speculation. The platitudes of a priest who, talking to a mother whose child just died after an agonising illness, says "It is God's will, and God's will must be good even if we cannot see why", are. Ditto for speculation about there being a 'good' reason for the pain of gout.
Hume is arguing against speculative philosophy (metaphysical theories).
"Those remote considerations" -- metaphysical theories that do not taken into considerations individual experiences. Individuals have sentiments, emotions, identity, and individual decisions.
Sounds like your gout helped you understand Hume's argument. Doesn't sound meaningless.
Quoting Noble Dust
What is the function of pain? I suppose the argument that animals that feel no pain tend to die, and so in evolutionary terms pain is useful.
However - what lesson am I to take from gout? Gout tends to strike after the age of maturity. It fist happened to me whilst my son was being born. I had more gas & air than his mother!!
Gout is hereditary. There is no use to it and the pain of it is unreasonable since there is no evolutionary benefit to such extreme pain. The pain is unavoidable. It is only through science that we learn how diet and drugs can help the onset of instances of gout.
Pain beyond reason! If you cut your finger and it hurts, it teaches you to not cut your finger next time.
Is there no joy beyond reason?
The pain of gout is due to a slight imbalance in the chemical pathways that change uric acid (a by-product of protein digestion)to urea which is urinated through the kidneys. Crystals of uric acid build up in the lower joints, especially the big toes, but also knees and even hips.
Imagine, if you will, having sand injected directly inside the joint to rub against the cartilage when the slightest movement of the joint is made. Massive inflammation of pain is the result, as if your toe had been ripped off and an electric sander pressed against the raw bloody end.
As well as being debilitating, people think it is some sort of joke disease from the 18thC. Jibes about too much wine and too many cigars follow as you hobble about with a stick or crutch.
I was attempting to point out that you said
Quoting charleton
Which suggested that "no one can comment on [Hume's] argument and fully understand it until they have also experienced [the pain of gout]". To be charitable, I interpreted that as meaning that you can't understand Hume's argument fully until you've experienced some sort of profound pain, physical or otherwise.
So I was suggesting that the answer to your question was in your own response: You are saying yourself that no one should be able to comment on Hume's argument if they haven't experienced excruciating pain. You have. So that makes you able to comment. If you hadn't experienced that pain, by your own logic, you wouldn't be able to comment. So, because of your pain, you've gained the ability to comment on Hume's argument, by your own logic. That is a gain you wouldn't have gained had you not experienced that pain. Thus, you've gained something through pain, which, by your own logic, you would not have gained otherwise.
*facepalm*
This is ridiculous... Yes, I am aware that gout is pain beyond reason. I don't need to experience gout to know what you mean by pain beyond reason, I've experienced GI tract infection that kept me in continuous acute pain - such pain that I couldn't even sleep, even though I was super tired, along with fever and other symptoms. I am fully aware of what pain beyond reason is.
But the argument is valid, even if this is pain beyond reason. Such pain beyond reason must be possible for us to have evolved to what we are today, according to the theory of evolution. So if you want to have the good, you have to say yes to the evil as well, as Nietzsche would put it. This is why Hume's argument is a joke.
Sure, it is pain beyond reason. But this doesn't mean that the metaphysical assertion that even evil is good for the whole in the end is false. For example, you can clearly understand from studying evolutionary biology, that without mistakes, pain, etc. we couldn't have developed in the first place. It's a clear fact - undeniable. It's simply undeniable, that regardless of how bad it feels, the possibility of such bad is necessary to have any good at all.
Quoting charleton
True, however, the possibility of such useless pain as that of gout is required in order for other goods in the world to be possible (such as useful pain). You cannot have useful pain without also having the possibility for useless pain.
In what way helpful? It's not helpful in decreasing the pain you feel or making you recover from the pain faster. But it is helpful in the aid it provides to enable you to psychologically understand why you need to come to terms with the situation as it is.
Quoting andrewk
This doesn't make much sense to me. You don't need to appeal to God / religion in a consciously aware sense, in order to realise that the possibility of good in life hinges on the possibility of bad, and if we eliminate bad, we also thereby eliminate good. Why do you think this insight requires "speculative and remote" considerations? I don't see anything remote about this - just seriously think about your own life, you will see that it is so. In fact, quite the contrary from being remote, it is one of those facts which is closest to you, perhaps that's why it is difficult for some to see it.
Sure, individuals have all that. How are they not taken into account? When I see that the possibility for useful pain, that helps me prevent a greater evil, requires the presence of useless pain - when I see this fact of nature in ALL my experiences - how is it possible to claim that my feelings, sentiments, emotions, identity, etc. aren't taken into account?
I think understand the argument but not fully, without gout pain or similar. But I'd not go through that pain just to understand Hume's argument.
The pain of gout certainly has nothing to do with Augusto's asinine "naturalistic/atheistic" argument.
Yes I know you are ridiculous. What of it.?
asinine!
FFS!! Hume is deliberately saying how stupid that argument is. The world could quite easily exist without the pain of gout - that's the bloody point!!
Do tell us why.
Nope. That makes utterly no sense. The possibility of gout is necessitated by our biological structure, and our biological structure had to evolve the way it did for us to be who we are today, and have these bodies that we do today, which in many ways are absolutely wonderful. So you have to accept the possibility of the mistakes, the bad things, etc. as part and parcel of what it takes for such bodies as ours to evolve and to exist.
So why don't you get it?
You would have to understand the philosophical debate of the time.
There was massive skepticism after the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, to which Leibniz hilarious response, so devastatingly parodied in Candide, was all for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Hume is specifically attacking this bit of silliness.
There is no purpose to the pain of gout, and many other conditions. For such elementary mistakes to be made God is nothing more than a useless tinkerer.
LOL - do you even read what I write?! I said the POSSIBILITY of gout is necessitated by our biological structure. Not the actuality of it. So I don't have it right now, but it's always possible that I will get it.
yes and no. First the 'no"
No, the pain of gout is the result of the necessity of cause and effect of a cold and indifferent universe with no purpose.
Nothing to do with possibilities, but necessities.
You are either going to get it or not. If you have the genetic propensity then your future is one in which you take 500mg of Allupurinol each day, or have a massively restricted diet.
Hume's point was that were you to believe in God you would have to accept that He ought to be smart enough to figure out a world in which there was no gout at all. Some get it some do not. Theodicy is silly.
Gout otherwise serves no purpose and makes no sense in a intelligently created world, and neither did the earthquake of 1755.
Yes, I do read what you write, and I also notice the posts you refuse to answer or acknowlege.
That is to suppose that we could get all the other good things without the bad ones. I don't grant that supposition, I see no reason for making it. The possibility for good seems to necessarily entail the possibility of evil. So nothing God can do about that.
Quoting charleton
Such as?
Hume's point seems to be that talk of cosmic harmony and theistic benevolence only comforts those who aren't suffering. As such, theodicies fail to provide anything useful for those in great pain. The implication seems to be that those who continue to assert the goodness of the whole, despite its implausibility from the perspective of those most acquainted with evil, must not truly understand what suffering or moral injustice is like.
Basically it seems as though Hume, being Hume, is pointing out philosophers' bullshit, and accusing them of not working with the real world. Rather akin to Voltaire's parody of Leibniz. Having suffered greatly puts things into a perspective that has not been entertained by those who wish to assert the overall goodness of the whole. It might be like a politician telling a Vietnam war veteran that the war was worth it. Bullshit.
It depends what you mean by comfort. It doesn't take away the pain of those who are suffering, but it makes it easier to psychologically accept their situation, and in that sense, it does provide comfort. And this is undeniable, it's simply a matter of fact. Just look at the sheer number of people who have gone through tremendous suffering who are believers in God, and who have faith that God will redeem them.
Quoting darthbarracuda
There is no implausibility there. Read, for example, Viktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning. Or read Solzhenitsyn. Or take your pick from the sufferers - you'll find more believers there than amongst those who never suffer.
So Hume is simply factually wrong if he wants to claim that theodicy does not provide psychological comfort to those who are suffering. He is right merely if we restrict what he says to mean simply that theodicy does not take the pain of those who are suffering away.
Yet there are also many, many people who were believers, and who went through all sorts of awful experiences and came out stripped of their religious beliefs, or at least very unstable about them. Jean Amery, Dostoevsky, Levinas, to name three I am reading right now.
I think you are trying to derive some kind of objective legitimacy to theodicy and religious belief based on how powerful their psychological effects can be. I'm willing to argue that it has nothing to do with religion being true and everything to do with a person's psychological and physiological type. Some people are more robust than others and can run marathons while most of us struggle to finish a 5K, just as some people find an outlet in the search for God while many struggle with the pervasive emptiness. This emptiness is mostly humans wanting God to be real when he is not. And some people have very good imaginations.
What are you talking about? Dostoevsky was a religious man, he died with the Bible in his lap. And Levinas wasn't exactly an atheist either. Don't know about Jean Amery.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Just a minority though.
Quoting darthbarracuda
There would be no desire if there was nothing that could fulfil that desire...
Right, but all three struggled with their faith. Dostoevsky's characters reflect a man with many contradictory perspectives, such as the duality between the nihilism of Ivan Karamazov and his religious brother Alyosha. Levinas explicitly rejects theodicy for being indecent, as does Jean Amery in his defense of suicide as a basic human right.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, if the majority was unable to repress, the human race wouldn't exist.
Quoting Agustino
Are you trying to pull an ontological argument here?
Dostoevsky was a believer in God, a firm believer in fact. He was very critical of the Ivan type of atheists.
Quoting darthbarracuda
How is this a repression?
Quoting darthbarracuda
No, this would be an argument from desire.
I am speculating is that theism is a form of psychological repression that has origins not only in the economic structure of society but also existential crises surrounding death and annihilation.
Quoting Agustino
Can you spell this out?
Someone gave me this awhile ago, and I've become a lot more sympathetic to it over time than I was at first.
Quoting darthbarracuda
But on the contrary, why would death be a bad thing on atheism? As Epicurus illustrated, if atheism is true, death is nothing to us. So why would there be any kind of existential crisis surrounding death whatsoever? I think that quite the contrary, death anxiety is a manifestation of theism - namely you are afraid of what comes after death, as Hamlet put it in his soliloquy.
But we need not be Epicureans if we are atheists, and in fact this Epicureanism is the same sort of thing that Hume is complaining about - it doesn't actually help in reality. Perhaps because it attempts to rationalize an irrational scenario. Epicurus' principle does not explain why people so desperately cling to life, nor does it help alleviate their suffering. It is just another mantra.
The Epicurean principle that death is not a harm is very counterintuitive. Most people, even if they are swayed by it, nevertheless will believe that it's not ideal. Death may not harm us in any empirical sort of way, but it surely does still hurt us in the form of annihilation. Losing one's identity, having one's projects foiled by the inevitable échec, our downfall, that is bad. We cannot stand thinking about a world that is not illuminated by our lights.
The charge that the fear of death is theistic is thus false, however I could retort that the continuation of existence is atheistic in that the person does not have enough trust or faith in God to expect deliverance after death. God, predictably, has commanded everyone to live and breed, so maybe that criticism doesn't work. But you get the idea.
I'm agnostic, by the way. Perhaps there is a redemption to be found, somehow. Philosophers have proven time and time again that just about anything can be presented in a manner so as to make it seem plausible. I have yet to find a theodicy that adequately explains evil to me, and if the current trend in theology and philosophy of religion is to be followed, then it's decidedly anti-theodicy and more and more based on a pure leap of faith. The failure of theodicy forms a key aspect of God's mysterious ways.
LOL - then why did Hume think that death is nothing to be feared, and died in a very peaceful & calm manner, such that even his enemies were impressed? Clearly, Hume did not think the Epicurean position was anything abstract at all - at least not in practice.
Quoting darthbarracuda
It does - because people are irrational.
Quoting darthbarracuda
An Epicurean would ask - what is there to annihilate? As would Hume.
Quoting darthbarracuda
That happens even within life.
Quoting darthbarracuda
That's not the only issue. Suicide is prohibited almost universally across the different religions. It is up to God to decide when to call someone back. As for why a theist would be sad upon death, it is merely because they will be temporarily separated from the people that they love who remain behind in the world.
Quoting darthbarracuda
What about the Book of Job?