Refuting Hume

In the reading, Hume makes the claim that “morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions.” I am in agreement that passions and strong sentiments can be aroused by morals, but I am unconvinced that such morals do not produce or prevent human action. From the time we are young children, we have morals hammered into our minds: do not cheat, do not lie, be kind and charitable, etc. People resonate with these truths, and many develop passions for certain morals. I think Hume is correct to say that morals that I have grown up with and impacted my personal development have driven me towards particular passions. As stated previously, it is the latter part of Hume’s argument that breaks down. I do not agree that morals produce or prevent humans of the modern world from taking certain actions. I argue that Reason is the driving force behind action. People preform actions for personal benefit, and are willing to commit most actions, however immoral, if it betters their situation. We, as a species, are inherently selfish and I believe that if there were guaranteed to be no repercussions for our actions, many people would run rampant. That being said, I do think morality plays an important part in our decision-making leading to our actions. Society has relied heavily on morality and has deemed certain actions unlawful or simply frowned upon. Murder and thievery are two actions that are illegal as well as immoral, but I think it is the repercussions of breaking the law that stop people from committing these crimes. I think it is easier for people to live with the guilt of being immoral after committing whatever action they please as long as they ultimately get what they want from the action. An example of this is a woman coveting a beautiful purse, and steals the purse even though she knows it is morally wrong. She loves the bag so much and