Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hume writes in his autobiographical essay, “My Own Life,” that he regarded his Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals as “of all my writings, historical, philosophical, or literary, incomparably the best.” This work, like the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, was a part of his Treatise on Human Nature that he had decided to “cast anew” (MOL 9-10). In an advertisement composed late in his life, Hume wrote that the volume of essays that included these two works afforded him an opportunity to correct “some negligences in his former reasoning and more in the expression” of the Treatise, and that he wanted the later work, and not the Treatise, to be “regarded as containing his philosophical sentiments and principles.” The second Enquiry is often considered amore eloquent work than the Treatise. But Hume's correction of some “negligences” in reasoning, the addition of new arguments, and a restructuring of main themes give the later work a philosophical significance in its own right. This essay examines Hume’s later moral philosophy. I also look at some differences between the Treatise and his later works. But the main aim of the essay is to draw attention to what makes the later work philosophically interesting and important in comparison with Hume’s earlier work. In particular, I show the importance of the mature Hume’s attention, in the second Enquiry , “A Dialogue,” and some of his essays, to the role of language and reason in morality. He also has important things to say about the issue of the universality and relativity of morals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".