Hume, Mill, Utilitarianism and Empiricism in Moral Ethics

Hume's Moral Philosophy and Emotivism

With regard to moral thought, Hume: His moral theory is emotivist and must be contrasted with Mill's utilitarianism. Hume and some indeterminists deeply believe in human freedom to choose. But there is a fundamental difference. For Hume, all actions share equal moral worth — and there is no criterion able to tell if an action is more or less moral than another. By contrast, in utilitarianism there is a criterion to assess different moral positions.

Utilitarians argue that morality is governed by the criterion of the maximum good for the greatest number: an action that produces greater overall happiness for more people is of higher moral value. For example, it is better to make a voluntary donation to a hospital than to spend the same money exclusively on small personal pleasures. This does not mean that small personal pleasures are bad: it simply means that they have less moral value when compared with actions that increase the happiness of many people.

Mill and Utilitarianism: Consequentialist Ethics

Mill's ethics is consequentialist: an act is better to the extent that it produces better consequences. Utilitarianism cannot be understood without the commitment to the idea of the highest good, which evaluates actions by their aggregate outcomes rather than only by intentions. This emphasis on outcomes contrasts with Hume's more subjectivist account of moral sentiment and the role of individual freedom in moral evaluation.

Comparison with Epicurean Pleasure Ethics

Hume can also be compared with the ethics of Epicurus, which values pleasure. Both views prioritize increasing pleasure and reducing pain as the path to happiness. In this respect, Hume's attention to sentiment and human well‑being resonates with Epicurean priorities.

Empiricism Versus Rationalism: Hume's Position

The current that opposes Descartes' rationalism is empiricism, and one of its most renowned representatives is Hume. For an empiricist, one must first establish that something exists; only then does it make sense to ask about the essence of that thing and how we know it. Briefly, modern empiricism, unlike rationalism, makes sensory experience the primary source of knowledge and denies that ideas are innate (contrary to Descartes and some rationalists).

By assigning this central role to sensory experience, empiricists understand consciousness as a blank slate on which sensory data are imprinted. Well‑formed experience and reflection give us knowledge.

Key Contrasts

• Hume: Emotivism and moral sentiment; skepticism about innate ideas; emphasis on freedom and subjective moral feeling.
• Mill: Consequentialist utilitarianism; evaluates actions by the greatest good for the greatest number; focuses on aggregate happiness.
• Epicurus: Pleasure as the aim of life; shared emphasis on increasing pleasure and reducing pain.
• Empiricism vs Rationalism: Sensory experience as the source of knowledge vs innate ideas and reason as primary.

Summary

Hume and Mill address morality from different starting points: Hume emphasizes sentiment, subjectivity, and empiricism, while Mill emphasizes consequences and a criterion for moral value based on aggregated well‑being. Both traditions intersect with ancient views such as Epicureanism on pleasure and happiness, but they diverge sharply in how moral worth is assessed and how knowledge is acquired.