3-13-98 DAVID HUME AND THE SUBJECT OF ETHICS

When a person's spiritual nature is under the influence of Saturn or the Nodes of the Moon, it makes for a born skeptic. A Nodian being is skeptical because of a natural resistance to all authority whether mundane or intellectual. A Saturnine being, unless his mind is presented with concrete facts, logic and material subject to empirical research, will tend to be skeptical. Hume's statement that when he tries to discover his mind, he can find nothing but impressions and ideas, or the contents of consciousness, is one of a skeptic. Followed to its conclusion however, the path of the skeptic can also lead to a complete spiritual enlightenment, the reality of the Void where there is No-thingness. It is apparent, however, that Hume did not have this realization.

In past articles I have talked about how someone can be a genius on the level of what I call the lower mind and yet, not have an equally developed higher mind or spiritual nature. He often accomplishes great things in the world, and yet, can lack the deeper insights and forms of balanced living demonstrated by an enlightened sage. This is the story of Hume.

However, I feel that it is in the arena of ethics where Hume made a significant and lasting contribution. He realized that morality and ethics is intimately tied to the emotions and passions. When someone says, "That's not fair!", they are expressing feelings. And since emotions and feelings are in a private, subjective domain, a superficial reading of Hume might lead us to believe that he is advocating a doctrine of complete moral relativism. Hume, however, carefully distinguished emotions based in egoism from a true universal sympathy found shared in the best of humanity . It was this latter type of exalted emotion that Hume thought was the basis of ethical behavior.

Hume's understanding is very close to the ancient Vedic conception of morality which distinguishes emotion from feeling. Emotion is a state of psychological attachment to an object of desire. Feeling is a freedom from any attachment or possessiveness. Thus, a completely moral person must also be an enlightened one. This same idea is expressed by Aristotle who believes morality to be intimately tied to the ideal of human excellence, and by. Nietzsche, who sees the moral man as one capable of "joyful wisdom", one who has the ability to make choices with the whole self.

The ancient Veda, while upholding the idea that morality is based in the ability to selflessly serve and give to others, still distinguished five different ways of outward service: the way of the Brahman, the Kshatriya. theVaishya, the Shudra and the Outcaste. In this sense moral duties are relative to one's status.

Rudolph Steiner, in his "Philosophy of Spiritual Activity", attempts to show that all moral judgments made by a spiritually free being are

totally internal decisions in accord with all the laws of nature and, therefore, free from any outwardly imposed standard. Different enlightened individuals, however, will express different aspects of natural law, so only in this sense is there moral relativism..

Is morality tied more to the faculty of feeling rather than thinking or willing? Hume would say yes and so would I. However, feeling, as opposed to emotion, develops simultaneously with willing and thinking. Thus we find many philosophers are inspired to select thinking or willing as the basis of morality, even though as I have attempted to articulate, along with Hume, that it is predominantly the realm of feeling that takes the lead in moral development.