PRUDENCE, MORALITY, AND THE HUMEAN THEORY OF REASONS

Humeans about normative reasons claim that there is a reason for you to perform a given action if and only if this would promote the satisfaction of one of your desires. Their view has traditionally been thought to have the revisionary implication that an agent can sometimes lack any reason to do what morality or prudence requires. Recently, however, Mark Schroeder has denied this. If he is right, then the Humean theory accords better with common sense than it has been thought to. I argue that Schroeder is mistaken, even if welfare (and thus prudence) is understood in terms of the satisfaction of one's desires: any Humean must concede that one can sometimes lack any reason to act morally or prudently. I also identify a novel variant on Humeanism that could perhaps avoid its revisionary implications about prudence (but not morality) if desire satisfactionism is the correct theory of welfare.

Hume on Practical Reason

Hume’s views about practical reason are often characterized in terms of his “double Humeanism”— i.e. the conjunction of the Humean Theory of Motivation (HTM) and the Humean Theory of Reasons (HTR). But Hume actually endorsed neither the HTM nor the HTR. Instead, the purpose of his discussion of these issues was to attack certain claims about the role of the faculty of reason in the practical domain. As such, Hume’s discussion is part of a far more radical philosophical project than anything in contemporary “Humeanism”: a wholesale assault on the idea that the faculty of reason has any special normative authority in either the theoretical or practical sphere. In this way, it is only by resisting the attribution of the HTM and HTR to Hume that we can see just how deep Hume’s antirationalism extends.