In a treatise of human nature, hume says the following: "tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." the important part of that, for his point, is "unreasonable." his point is that reason alone won't tell him that he ought to put his self-interest aside, even in such an extreme case. what do you make of this claim? is it unreasonable to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of your finger? if so, why? does hume's view undermine objectivity in ethics? explain your positions.

Answer and Explanation

Hume clamis in that passage, and this is the essentials of his theory, that ethics and morals are not determine by reason. That is why it is no unreasonable to think of one self when reason is in charge. There for selfish thoughts as the destruction fo the whole world are effects of reason, that is why he calls them not unreasonable.

Hume claims that for a person to acts according to ethics and morality, sentiments or afections must be placed. The point he wants to make is not about justifying selfish acts, but to point out how humans and their reasoning can be destructive. And to underline the importants of other matters in human life such as afection and feelings.

Hume undermine objectivity in ethics because objectivity comes from thinking and reasoning, which as we already explained is not ethical. To act in a moral and ethical way, is to think about the consequences of every action, and also to consider others.

To have an ethical thinking is very important for society, the impact our actions have is necessary.

i am a priest who cares deeply about the church. i have been called here to explain my views on indulgences and other proposed reforms. i would like to explain why my views are consistent with the bible and are correct.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.