John Clarke of Hull, one of the eighteenth century's staunchest proponents of psychological egoism, defended that theory in his Foundation of Morality in Theory and Practice. He did so mainly by opposing the objections to egoism in the first two editions of Francis Hutcheson's Inquiry into Virtue. But Clarke also produced a challenging, direct argument for egoism which, regrettably, has received virtually no scholarly attention. In this paper I give it some of the attention it merits. In addition to reconstructing (...) it and addressing interpretive issues about it, I show that it withstands a tempting objection. I also show that although Clarke's argument ultimately fails, to study it is instructive. It illuminates, for example, Hutcheson's likely intentions in a passage relevant to egoism. (shrink)

In this article I address a puzzle about one of Francis Hutcheson’s objections to psychological egoism. The puzzle concerns his premise that God receives no benefit from rewarding the virtuous. Why, in the early editions of his Inquiry Concerning Virtue (1725, 1726), does Hutcheson leave this premise undefended? And why, in the later editions (1729, 1738), does he continue to do so, knowing that in 1726 John Clarke of Hull had subjected the premise to plausible criticism, geared to the very (...) audience (mainly Christian) for whom Hutcheson’s objection to egoism was written? This puzzle is not negligible. Some might claim that Hutcheson ruins his objection by ignoring Clarke’s criticism. To answer the puzzle we must consider not only Hutcheson’s philosophy but also some theological assumptions of Hutcheson’s time. (shrink)

Among the most animating debates in eighteenth-century British ethics was the debate over psychological egoism, the view that our most basic desires are self-interested. An important episode in that debate, less well known than it should be, was the exchange between Francis Hutcheson and John Clarke of Hull. In the early editions of his Inquiry into Virtue, Hutcheson argued ingeniously against psychological egoism; in his Foundation of Morality, Clarke argued ingeniously against Hutcheson’s arguments. Later, Hutcheson attempted new arguments against psychological (...) egoism, designed to overcome Clarke’s objections. This article examines the exchange between these philosophers. Its conclusion, influenced partly by Clarke, is that psychological egoism withstands Hutcheson’s arguments. This is not to belittle those arguments—indeed, they are among the most resourceful and plausible of their kind. The fact that egoism withstands them is thus not a mere negative result, but a stimulus to consider carefully the ways in which progress in this area may be possible. (shrink)

SummaryThis article argues that Archibald Campbell's Necessity of Revelation can be viewed as the first application of the ‘science of human nature’, a characteristic branch of the Scottish Enlightenment, to the study of religious belief. Adopting Baconian and Newtonian methodological principles, Campbell set hypotheses, collected historical data, and inferred conclusions about the capabilities of human nature to come to fundamental religious ideas without the aid of revelation. He did so not only to reject the ‘deist’ position on the powers of (...) unassisted human reason, associated with Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation, but also to refute Campbell's conservative critics within the Church of Scotland who had earlier tried him for heresy. Campbell's example is that of a university professor using the experimental study of religion to defeat both radical freethinking and Calvinist orthodoxy. His work is another instance of the complicated relationship between science and religion within eighteenth-century Scotland. (shrink)

This paper discusses the accounts of self-cultivation and self-denial of Archibald Campbell (1691–1756). It analyses how he attempts to make room for moral self-improvement and for the control of the passions in a thoroughly egoistic psychological framework, and with a theory of moral motivation that focuses on a specific kind of self-love, namely the desire for esteem. Campbell's views are analysed in the context of his criticisms of both Francis Hutcheson's benevolence-based moral philosophy and of Bernard Mandeville's version of an (...) egoistic psychology. The paper explores the key role of Campbell's distinction between true and mistaken self-love, and it discusses how his account of self-cultivation reflects both his optimistic view of human nature as being naturally disposed to virtue and his moral rehabilitation of self-love – two points on which he is in conflict with the period's orthodox Calvinism. (shrink)

The moral sense is at the heart of Hutcheson's system. Its prominent role in this philosopher's morals and posterior commentary eclipses the rest of the senses, but there is at least one sense that deserves more attention in scholarship: the sense of honour. The reason the sense of honour, and its subordination to the moral sense, is attention-worthy is that it combats Mandeville's idea of honour as artifice. First, I flesh out the tension between pride and the moral sense and (...) a possible tension between the sense of honour and the moral sense. Next, I show how Hutcheson expanded and elaborated on the sense of honour, particularly in his later works ( System and Compendiaria). His strategy consisted in dissolving the tension between the sense of honour and the moral sense. (shrink)

Friedrich Schiller es uno de esos autores que puede ser abordado tanto desde la perspectiva literaria como desde la filosófica. Dada la diversidad de sus obras, que comprenden poemas, novelas, así como diálogos y ensayos filosóficos, siempre ha constituido un desafío para las distinciones entre disciplinas, haciendo surgir inevitables dificultades metodológicas. Incluso su presencia en el canon aún suscita controversias entre los estudiosos: mientras que su papel como poeta destacado en la Ilustración tardía y el clasicismo weimariano está con justicia (...) fuera de toda duda, Schiller ha sido en cambio considerado o bien como un mero filósofo aficionado, completamente deudor de Kant, o bien como un pensador independiente enfrentado a Kant; estas dos consideraciones han conducido obviamente a diferentes visiones sobre su posición en el interior del canon. En ambos casos, de todos modos, las únicas obras que se han tomado en consideración son las que se refieren al pensamiento kantiano, compuestas y publicadas por Schiller en la década de 1790. Por esta razón, ha ganado peso la creencia de que Schiller como filósofo sólo existe gracias a Kant. El propósito de este artículo es poner en duda esta tesis mostrando la profundidad de la filosofía schilleriana de juventud, así como apuntando a la continuidad de sus intereses antes, después y más allá de Kant. (shrink)