f ive l e c t u re s o n j o s e p h bu t l e r

l e c t u re i

The Moral Constitution of Human Nature

§1. Introduction: Life (1692–1752), Works, and Aims

(1)Joseph Butler was born at Wantage, Berkshire, in 1692. His father was Presbyterian and wanted his son to enter the Presbyterian ministry. Butler attended a well-known Dissenting Academy at Gloucester (later moved to Tewksbury) where, in due course, he decided to convert to the Church of England. In 1714, at the rather mature age of 22, he entered Oriel College, Oxford, as a commoner, and took his arts degree in 1718. That same year he was ordained deacon and then raised to the priesthood by Bishop Talbot at St. James, Westminster. Also that year, 1718, he was made preacher at Rolls Chapel, London—a post he held until 1726. During these years he wrote the Sermons on which his reputation in moral philosophy largely rests. These were first published in 1726. Butler held various other positions, eventually becoming Bishop of the wealthy See of Durham in 1750. He died two years later.

Besides the Sermons, Butler is well known for his later work, The Analogy of Religion, published ten years after the Sermons, in 1736. I shall not say much about this work, but it is important to keep it in mind, as it tells us a great deal about Butler’s background conceptions and the framework of ideas within which his moral philosophy is to be understood. To forget this background is precisely the kind of mistake in interpretation I want to avoid. I should add that the Analogy contains two short Appendices, one on personal identity, the other a brief dissertation (as he calls it) of virtue. The latter we shall also read.

(2)Although it is clear from his style that Butler did not enjoy the rough-and-tumble of controversy, his works are nevertheless designed to re-

[ 416 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Five Lectures on Joseph Butler

fute certain definite views and writers in his day. Butler’s aims were in the following sense practical:

(a)He did not trouble to prove truths that no one denied. He took no interest in finding new or more elegant ways of establishing received truths.

(b)He only attacks what he regards as dangerous, that is, morally corrupting or tending to undermine beliefs and virtues necessary for human society, or the integrity of Christian faith. Essentially, Butler is an apologist in the old sense: a defender of morals and reasonable belief. For him, philosophy is defense, as it is also, in an interestingly different way, for Kant.

(c)Butler always assumes as premises those he holds in common with his opponents. He is happy to recognize shared assumptions and to defend morals and reasonable religious belief from this common ground. His style is respectful and moderate, although there are occasionally strong statements concerning the pernicious consequences of the views he is attacking.

(3) Butler’s philosophical temperament is practical also in another sense: he takes little interest in metaphysical or epistemological or other philosophical questions for their own sake. He avoids philosophical subtleties; speculative questions are beyond our reach. There are two chapters in the Analogy, the titles of which express this attitude: Part I, Chapter 7, “Of the Government of God, Considered as a Scheme or Constitution Imperfectly Comprehended,” and Part II, Chapter 4, “Of Christianity, Considered as a Scheme or Constitution Imperfectly Comprehended.”

Thus, Butler’s practical aim is simply to confirm us in our moral and religious practice in everyday life. He is not concerned to elaborate new moral values or to work out a new basis for the moral virtues, and similarly for religious practice. He is a conservative, a defender of morals and reasonable Christian belief. We do not need philosophy for practical life in society; we do need it, however, when the basis of our practical life is attacked by philosophical means. We must, as it were, fight philosophy with philosophy, and only with philosophy so far as necessary.

§2. Butler’s Opponents

We can divide Butler’s opponents into two groups as follows:

(1) Certain moral philosophers, especially Hobbes, but also Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, among others. Where Butler differs from them is clear

[ 417 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

a p p e n d i x

from the Sermons, where the references are explicit. His main antagonist is Hobbes and the various writers Hobbes influenced, or who expressed related views, such as Mandeville. Concerning Hobbes, it is useful as a schema for looking at the history of modern philosophy to see it as beginning with him. Hobbes was seen in his day as the most dramatic expression of modern infidelity, and no wonder, in view of the enormous power of his work, The Leviathan, perhaps the greatest work on moral and political philosophy in the English language, even though its main thesis must be considered false. Hobbist doctrines we understand to imply materialism, determinism, and egoism. He was thought to deny a reasonable basis for morals—hence, Hobbism involved amoralism and recognized rational calculation of interests as the only kind of practical or rational deliberation. Hobbes was said to base political obligation on relations of power, and to deny any objective or shared basis for morals. It was left to the Sovereign to decide upon the content of society’s laws, which represent, therefore, public conventions enforced by the Sovereign’s monopoly of power when the Sovereign is effective.

Plainly, Butler is much concerned to refute this view (as were Cudworth and Clarke, and the utilitarians, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, and Hume). Butler is concerned with this task not only in those places where Hobbes is explicitly referred to (e.g. Sermon I: 4, footnote), but Butler’s conception of the constitution of human nature is itself the centerpiece of this reply. Clearly it differs from Hobbes (as interpreted) in ascribing to human nature a principle of benevolence and the supreme principle of conscience which directs us to the moral virtues and prompts us to act from them for their own sake.

Beyond these evident differences there is a more basic difference, namely: Hobbes had drawn a picture of human nature that often describes us as unfit for society—as driven by vanity and the desire for glory and selfdisplay. Even our reason is a hazard to us; it leads us to speculate and to imagine that we can understand more things and to run society better than anyone else. Our reason can make us fanatics (Hobbes has in mind preachers of sects) and render society ungovernable, unless we somberly recognize our situation and coolly calculate on the basis of our fundamental interest in our self-preservation. What Hobbes took to be the madness of the English Civil War lies behind this picture of our unfitness for society. It is this picture of ourselves, as unfit for society, that Butler opposes

[ 418 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Five Lectures on Joseph Butler

with his conception of the moral constitution of human nature. This should become clear in a moment when I sketch the outlines of this constitution.

(2) The other group of Butler’s opponents, although they are not of direct concern to us, are the English Deists of his day. These writers attacked the necessity of Revelation and of the Scheme of Christian Faith (to use Butler’s term) as based on Revelation. The Deists believed that natural theology was sufficient: reason can establish the existence of God as creator of the world and a being of supreme intelligence and power, and an exemplar of justice and benevolence. Two of these writers were John Toland (1670–1722) who wrote Christianity not Mysterious; and Matthew Tindal, who wrote Christianity as Old as the Creation, which appeared after Butler’s Sermons in 1730. It is works such as these that Butler attacks in the Analogy (1736).

Thus notice that Butler accepts as premises the Deist view, as just stated. Butler takes for granted that God exists as creator of the world, etc., both in the Sermons and in the Analogy. We must not forget these background premises in reading and interpreting the Sermons. For example, there appears to be in Butler an inconsistency in what he says about the supremacy of conscience and the claims of cool and reasonable self-love. Whether he is consistent here may depend on these background assumptions. We shall come back to this later.

§3. The Moral Constitution of Human Nature

This brings us to the main topic for today. But first let me make a remark about the content of the Preface and the first three sermons.

(1) The Preface was added in the second edition and gives a survey of the main theses of the Sermons. The prominence given to the constitution of human nature shows that Butler regarded it as the centerpiece of his moral doctrine. The first Sermon describes this constitution in greater detail; the second Sermon focuses on the notion of the authority of conscience vs. the influence of the promptings of conscience. This is an important distinction which Butler tries to explain and support by an appeal to our moral experience. Next time, I shall try to examine what he says here in more detail. The third Sermon takes up the question of the possible con-

[ 419 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

a p p e n d i x

flict between the authority of conscience and cool and reasonable self-love. Butler also discusses this question in the Preface: pars. 29 and 41, and in Sermon XI: 20–21.

(2) Let us turn to the notion of a constitution of human nature. Butler thinks this notion involves various features:

(a)Human nature has various parts, or psychologies, or intellectual powers and dispositions.

Butler distinguishes:

(i)Appetites, affections, and passions of various kinds, and here we should include attachments to particular persons, places, and things, including institutions and traditions.

(ii)The two general and rational or deliberative principles of benevolence and reasonable self-love. There is some ambiguity in Butler’s account of benevolence; he sometimes describes it as an affection or passion, and at others as a general and deliberative principle. This is not a major difficulty, and we can clear it up when we come to Sermons XI–XII. For the time being, let’s think of benevolence as a general and deliberative principle (and so, as a higher-order principle).

(iii)The supreme principle of reflection (as Butler sometimes says), of the principle of conscience. This is the principle or the power of moral judgment, and the judgments of conscience prompt us to act from the moral virtues—veracity, honesty, justice, gratitude, and so on, for their own sake.

(b)Such are the parts of human nature. The notion of a constitution requires that these parts stand in certain relations. They are organized in a hierarchy and governed or directed by a supreme regulative principle. With this requirement in mind, it appears that Butler describes the relation of organization as having three levels: the lowest, the affections and passions; next, the general and rational deliberative principles of benevolence and reasonable self-love; and the highest, the principle of reflection or conscience. Thus the idea of a constitution, for Butler, implies that normally an authoritative decision of judgment is given when such a decision is required. To ascribe to conscience this authoritative and supremely regulative role is to say that the deliverances or judgments of conscience, when they are called for, specify conclusive or decisive reasons for what we are to do. The appeal to conscience is final; it settles the matter.

(c)Butler thinks we must add a further point if the notion of a constitu-

[ 420 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Five Lectures on Joseph Butler

tion is to apply. We must specify the end to which the constitution of human nature is directed and by reference to which its organization can be understood. In the Preface: par. 11, he compares human nature to a watch. We can talk about the constitution of a watch because a watch is organized to tell time. This purpose enables us to understand why its parts are organized as they are. Similarly, Butler describes the constitution of human nature as adapted to virtue: the parts are organized as they are—with the principle of reflection or conscience authoritative and supreme—in order that we may be prompted to act virtuously, to do what is right and good for their own sake.

(3) At first sight, this comparison between the constitution of human nature and the organization of a watch seems unsatisfactory. We are not artifacts designed to fulfill certain purposes of superior beings who have made us for their ends. But, as soon as we say this, we know that Butler does believe this; only for him there is but one such superior being, namely, God. Thus, speaking generally, we are made for God’s purposes, although God’s purposes and scheme of government, both in nature and in revelation, are imperfectly comprehended by us.

This religious doctrine might seem less foreign to us if we look at the details of our own moral constitution. Butler’s view might be put more instructively if we said this: our constitution is adapted to virtue, and virtue is in turn those forms of conduct which adapt us to our daily life as members of society. The content of the virtues and of the deliverances of our conscience give due allowance both to the claims of society and to other persons, as well as to the claims of reasonable self-love (which, of course, is not the same as selfishness). We are beings who must be in part concerned with ourselves, since we have appetites and affections and attachments of various kinds; but also, we must live in society in view of our social nature, a point that Butler repeatedly emphasizes. Thus, when Butler says that our constitution is adapted to virtue, he can be taken to mean that our constitution is adapted to forms of conduct which enable us to be reasonable members of society.

We are able to engage in forms of social life which give due allowance and scope for our own and others’ good. Regarded in this way, we can see how the notion of the constitution of human nature is directed against Hobbes. We shall see later how the notion of the authority of conscience is directed against Shaftesbury; and how Butler’s conception of the content of

[ 421 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College