Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

As usual, I appreciated Hume’s insights, yet it doesn’t stand up to his Treatise. I enjoyed the conclusion, appendices I and II, and the ending dialogue, but the meat of the book was tough to get through. His general method was to present a quality we generally agree is good, maybe give an example from history, and say it really is good because it’s agreeable and/or useful. Needless to say I didn’t find it very convincing. The arguments in the rest of the book were more solid.

I agree that passions are necessary for moral preferences, and that ethics can’t be derived from pure reason. I agree that self-interest is not sufficient to explain why we care about others.


I loved the daoist/epicurean sentiment at the very end: “And in a view to pleasure, what comparison between unbought satisfaction of conversation, society, study, even health and the common beauties of nature, but above all the peaceful reflection on one’s own conduct: What comparison, I say, between these, and the feverish, empty amusements of luxury and expence? These natural pleasures, indeed, are really without price; both because they are below all price in their attainment, and above it in their enjoyment.�