The debate over morality—its
function, its origin, its purpose, even its very existence—is timeless and has
been held by a variety people and cultures. Oddly enough, some of history’s
leading Economists have held such a discussion. Those like Bernard Mandeville
find that good morals such as selflessness are upheld for selfish motives
themselves, meaning that “morality” not truly “moral” itself. However, those
like Adam Smith, David Hume, and Terrence Hutcheson dispute this viewpoint,
claiming that morality is something given to us by God and serves to further
the greater good of humanity.
So far in Blogging with Adam Smith
and Karl Marx, the most interesting readings I’ve undertaken were those of
Mandeville and Hutcheson. Mandeville, as it pertains to human morality,
describes it as little more than an instinctive impulse, comparing humans, in
this sense, to animals, consumed by “self-conquest.” Though there is a degree
of reason and sentiment put into human morality, man’s main motivation for
being “good” is simply for personal gratification; as a result, there is no set
ethical code among humans, but rather a holier-than-thou competition held among
all people. Hutcheson, on the other hand, argues that humans, who share a
number of commonalities (that cannot be explained by rationality or necessity)
such as appreciation for beauty and yearning for a greater good, act
righteously to advance the social community and honor their God. As a result of
this observation, from Hutcheson’s point of view, good-doing is more a
cooperative effort to further mankind for its sake as a whole, rather than a
self-interested contest (and ultimately points to the existence of a greater
overseeing being, though that is food for another discussion).
Morality is a concept that no human
truly understands. A universal, metaphysical ethical code undeniably exists
among man, and many viewpoints have been brought to the intellectual table.
Both Mandeville and Hutcheson bring up interesting perspectives on morality (as
do Smith, Hume, and a variety of others, for that matter), and I aim to take
their opinions into consideration and form a more concise and educated
estimation of my own.
I
am excited to continue learning about this ongoing debate and how it ties into
the economic realm. Morality and those who study it, much like economics and
economists, deal with ambiguity in their research and discourse, and I believe
that understanding both will give me the comprehensive understanding of human
tendencies I am seeking in taking this course.
Cullen Cosco
Mandeville, Bernard, and F. B. Kaye.
"An Enquiry Into the Origin of Moral Virtue." The Fable
of
the Bees: Or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1924. N. pag. The Online Library of Liberty. Web.
Hutcheson, Francis. "Concerning
Our Reasonings about Design and Wisdom in the Cause,
from
the Beauty or Regularity of Effects." An Inquiry Into the Original of
Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue. New York: Garland Pub., 1971. N. pag. The
Online Library of Liberty. Web.
Cullen,
ReplyDeleteI have to say that you made an interesting point comparing humans to animals. I a sense to me this has seemed like a debate of whether humans truly exist or if we're just really smart animals. I like how you put that the Mandeville perspective paints us as dogs interested only in ourselves while on the other end of the spectrum the is an argument that we have more than that. That our feelings of commonality make us more than just rabid dogs. To me in a sense it spells out that our emotions, our empathy, take us beyond the point of being just animals and put us above as true humans.
Good summary of the difference between Hutcheson and Mandeville. I like that you really emphasize that Mandeville sees morality as hypocrisy: as an attempt to pass ourselves off as better than others. If he is on to something, it may be on this point. The question of whether morality is either universal or codifiable is also crucial: I think Hutcheson would say we can translate it into a code, but that knowledge of this code is not what determines our moral judgments. Mandeville, of course, would probably say the only universal rule is self-love.
ReplyDelete