This paper, responding to recent work by Tony Burns, has two main interpretive purposes first, to explain in what sense Aristotle's natural justice is natural, yet variable; and second, to explain why Aristotle interpreted Antigone's defence as an appeal to natural law (rather than, say, to particular unwritten law). This requires a careful untangling of Aristotle's usage of 'natural' in several different senses, both descriptive and normative. In short, it is normatively natural for humans to excel at what is distinctive (...) of their descriptive nature. Since human descriptive nature is flexible, so is what is normatively natural for humans. And it is a matter of natural justice that one must not be hindered from or punished for doing what is normatively natural. This Aristotelian line of thought is then briefly explored as it reappears in Edmund Burke's discussion of natural law. (shrink)

This paper explores what the three best-known thinkers in the sentimentalist tradition - David Hume (1711-76), Adam Smith (1723-90), and Edmund Burke (1729-97) – have to say about the topic of “dirty hands” (the view that some forms of power, used properly, lead to guilt and bad actions). Although the views of these philosophers have often been declared inconsistent, my project is to defend and resurrect key elements of their position, which may have value for this debate. I contend that (...) a coherent and unified view about dirty hands may be extracted from their work. By discussing this view, I aim to elucidate a philosophical tradition that may not be familiar to many readers today.On their sentimentalist approach, all jobs or social roles inevitably lead to characteristic varieties of wrongdoing (i.e. dirty hands), due to corruption, increased temptation and opportunity. Such inevitability does not excuse the wrongdoing, but it might diminish the appropriate level of moral blame for those at the bottom, while enhancing blame for persons at the top. (shrink)

Adam Smith and David Hume agree that first-level general rules of morality may be discovered by induction, and that reflection on these rules may influence human behavior. But Hume thinks a deeper, second level of moral general rules may also be discovered, and used to correct erroneous first-level rules. Thus on Hume's view, some reasoned reflection may be needed in order to feel the proper moral sentiment. Smith holds that, because of human inclination toward selfishness, first-level moral rules should be (...) habitually used to override immediate impulse in the motivation of behavior. This is a valuable habit, but since most people are not able to form such rules for themselves, it is a good idea for them to follow moral rules provided by religion. There is something respectable, according to Smith, in sincerely following flawed moral rules provided by religion. Hume disagrees, holding that it is foolish and blameworthy, indeed dangerous, to follow flawed moral rules provided by religion. (shrink)