Despite being averse to moral extravagance, Hume’s own conception of morality threatens to be too demanding and his view of human life to be too moralistic. The problem lies in the scope (and concomitantly the content) Hume assigns morality, the effect of which is the apparent exclusion of the morally indifferent and the morally supererogatory. This threatens to render the normative dimension of Hume’s account problematic. Sufficiently problematic to overmoralize the self? That is the question this essay seeks to motivate.

Russell espouses atheism; indeed he regards it as the default. However, he also lays claim to agnosticism, backing into it by way of the argument from ignorance. This essay asserts that in light of how he frames the relationship between atheism and agnosticism, the latter is not the available alternative that he and his assessors assume it is—not because its stance is indefensible, but because of what, given his point of origin, he has to hold in order for it to (...) be even a possibility. In a phrase, on Russell’s construal, agnosticism as an option is idle. (shrink)