Synthesized answer
Fixing the foundation of morals is important because without it, it is impossible to engage in science or action of any kind [3]. Morality relies on the premise that particular characters have a certain power to produce specific sentiments, and that these sentiments have a constant operation on actions [3]. If this foundation is not established, it becomes impossible to determine the source of distinctions between truth and falsehood, or vice and virtue [4].
Philosophers believe it is a reproach to literature that the foundation of morals has not yet been fixed beyond controversy [4]. They aim to discover original principles that bound human curiosity in every science [4]. While their speculations may seem abstract, they are intended to contribute to the instruction of posterity [4]. The passages suggest that without a fixed foundation for morals, the ability to pronounce conduct and sentiments as natural or unnatural in given circumstances, as done in criticism, would also be impossible [3].
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
hich are found of so little efficacy with regard to one, will have a more powerful influence with regard to the other. The mind of man is so formed by nature that, upon the appearance of certain characters, dispositions, and actions, it immediately feels the sentiment of approbation or blame; nor are there any emotions more essential to its frame and constitution. The characters which engage our approbation are chiefly such as contribute to the peace and security of human society; as the characters which excite blame are chiefly such as tend to public detriment and disturbance:…
repentance wipes off every crime, if attended with a reformation of life and manners. How is this to be accounted for? but by asserting that actions render a person criminal merely as they are proofs of criminal principles in the mind; and when, by an alteration of these principles, they cease to be just proofs, they likewise cease to be criminal. But, except upon the doctrine of necessity, they never were just proofs, and consequently never were criminal. 77. It will be equally easy to prove, and from the same arguments, that _liberty_, according to that definition above mentioned, in…
f mankind? How could _politics_ be a science, if laws and forms of goverment had not a uniform influence upon society? Where would be the foundation of _morals,_ if particular characters had no certain or determinate power to produce particular sentiments, and if these sentiments had no constant operation on actions? And with what pretence could we employ our _criticism_ upon any poet or polite author, if we could not pronounce the conduct and sentiments of his actors either natural or unnatural to such characters, and in such circumstances? It seems almost impossible, therefore, to…
te our understanding, excite our sentiments, and make us approve or blame any particular object, action, or behaviour. They think it a reproach to all literature, that philosophy should not yet have fixed, beyond controversy, the foundation of morals, reasoning, and criticism; and should for ever talk of truth and falsehood, vice and virtue, beauty and deformity, without being able to determine the source of these distinctions. While they attempt this arduous task, they are deterred by no difficulties; but proceeding from particular instances to general principles, they still push on…
ncerning metaphysics and religion. 114. There is still one circumstance, replied I, which you seem to have overlooked. Though I should allow your premises, I must deny your conclusion. You conclude, that religious doctrines and reasonings _can_ have no influence on life, because they _ought_ to have no influence; never considering, that men reason not in the same manner you do, but draw many consequences from the belief of a divine Existence, and suppose that the Deity will inflict punishments on vice, and bestow rewards on virtue, beyond what appear in the ordinary course of nature.…