Abstract

Morality is a dangerous thing: While searching for one universal, ideal, objective set of moral rules, it is quite easy to forget or ignore alternative modes of living, cultures and experiences. It is very clear and simple to see that moral rules are unstable when we get informed about different cultures and different modes of life. Yet Nature seems stable; therefore, philosophers -trying to provide objectivity to any set of morals- mostly refer to Nature. Adam Smith is a good example on this issue. “Moral life is a form of life which accords with Nature.” This is one of the basic underlying arguments of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. For Smith, if there is a bias between the aims of Nature and our understanding of morality, then our views on morality have to fail. Hence, Smith indirectly presents a specific picture of Nature besides his thoughts on moral sentiments for consideration: Nature has intentions; She has some material to teach to us, some laws that provide punishments and rewards; or She has some orders to the mankind and She controls the balance between individual happiness and the happiness of society. Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments is a good example to show how Nature can be manipulated in order to legitimize our understanding of morality. For example, it is possible to say being gay is not natural, therefore it is not moral. In this sense, my primary concern is to expose Smith’s understanding of Nature to present how Nature can be used to legitimize morality. In order to achieve this, first I shall investigate and discuss the relevant parts about Nature in the book. Following this, I shall present the problematic sides of this attitude.