Talk:An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Start-class)|
Clean-up & expansion
I'm shocked that there is almost nothing on Wikipedia about Hume's Enquiry. TimD 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. I recently added some stuff. Some of it was just copied from the relevant part of the main entry on Hume. But, I tried to organize it and add some myself. It still needs to be cleaned up and expanded more. -- Jaymay 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow you are my hero Jaymay TimD 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am in the midst of re-reading the Enquiry and am creating a "modern English translation" of the work. As part of this effort, I am happy to also create an expanded version of this page. This will take some time, however, so you won't see results any time soon. Anyone who wishes to update this page in the meantime need not feel like they are stepping on my toes. Indeed, I will probably fork anything you write if I like it enough! Postmodern Beatnik 01:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Some things that are still needed:
- The common or General Point of View (GPV)
- The role of imagination
- The epistemology (the moral sense) versus the metaphysics (arguably anti-realist)
in the principles of morals Hume also talks about the circumstances of his consequentialist view of justice... Perhaps this article might be better served with some discussion on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castdowntheheretic (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
We need a summary of the different portions of Hume's book and the argument he makes in each. A general article on a book should help readers navigate through the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
"The first-order moral theory that emerges from the second Enquiry is a form of virtue ethics."
At best this is a very controversial interpretation of the text. The two major camps are divided between those who see the view Hume defends as a secondary quality/response dependent theory of ethics, and those take a more semantic approach and see Hume as an expressivist. This article really needs to a more detailed analysis of the text itself, before it jumps down some 'offbeat' exegetical line. As it is now this entire article is very misleading.