Shafer-Landau's Argument Against Mr. David Hume

In the passage located between pages 151-159, Mr. David Hume argues that “The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason” (Shafer-Landau & Hume, 2015). I will respond to this claim by arguing against Mr. Hume’s view and show different reasons to why reasoning can affect the rules of morality. Mr. Hume argues that morals “have an influence on the actions and affections” (Shafer-Landau & Hume, 2015) and that “they cannot be derived from reason” (Shafer-Landau & Hume, 2015). Mr. Hume argues that “morals excite passions and produce and provide actions”. He further develops his argument when he says that reason itself is “utterly impotent” (Shafer-Landau & Hume, 2015) and that reason cannot influence the same way that morals can. I will

Hume has failed to take a few things into account. The first of this would be concerning reasoning backing up your morality. As we all have grownup, we are often told to not do things such as do not smoke or do not steal etc and when we ask why not to, we are told simply because it is bad. For those people who remain in question about why smoking is bad and who are maybe standing on the fence between doing it and not doing it is where I feel reason comes into play. We are then shown facts that say “Smoking is bad because x…y…z…” which then solidify our reasoning and backs up our morality. The other side of this would be with smoking pot. Again, we are told not to smoke as we grow up but once again, for those who stand on the fence about doing it and not doing it, the facts have not shown, or at least not nearly to the same extent as smoking cigarettes, that smoking pot harms us. This is where reason will tell our morality that “hey, this is actually alright and okay” and that to me, shows that morality is derived from reason. Another reason that shows morality does come from reasoning would be whether or not to do something illegal, such as harming someone or stealing etc. For the