Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:21:26.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shaftesbury and the Doctrine of Moral Sense in the Eighteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

William E. Alderman
William E. Alderman*
Affiliation:
Beloit College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term “moral sense” is generally credited to Shaftesbury; in any case he is the one who gave it currency. At the time he introduced it the reigning authorities in ethical theory were, on the one hand, Hobbes, who declared: “Justice is the keeping of valid convenants; injustice the non-performance of them;” and, on the other, Locke and the orthodox party, generally, who held that “the true ground of morality can only be the Will and Law of God.”

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 1931 , pp. 1087 - 1094
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Compare Robertson, Characteristics, Vol. i, p. 262, note; Stephen, Freethinking and Plainspeaking, p. 265; Fowler, Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, p. 166; Moore, PMLA, xxxi, p. 269.

2 For a convenient epitome of certain salient points in the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke see my article, “The Significance of Shaftesbury in English Speculation” (PMLA, xxxviii, 177–180).

3 The Moralists, Pt. iii, sect. ii.

4 Inquiry concerning Virtue, Bk. i, Pt. II, sect. iii.

5 The Moralists, Pt. iii, sect. ii.

6 Inquiry concerning Virtue, Bk. i, Pt. iii, sect. i. 7 The Moralists, Pt. ii, sect. iv.

8 Miscellany v, Ch. iii.

9 Inquiry concerning Virtue, Bk. ii, Pt. ii, sect. i.

10 Inquiry concerning Virtue, Bk. i, Pt. iii, sect. ii.

11 Inquiry concerning Virtue, Bk. ii, Pt. ii, sect. i.

12 See Miscellany iii, Ch. ii.

13 See PMLA, xxxi, pp. 264–325; xxxviii, pp. 175–195.

14 Since writing this the writer has prepared and had published an article on Shaftesbury and the Doctrine of Benevolence in the Eighteenth Century. See Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy, Vol. xxvi, pp. 137–159.

15 Preface (1729) to Sermons, sect. ii.

16 Ibid., sect. 12.

17 Ibid., sect. 13.

18 Sermon i, On Human Nature, sect. 7.

19 Sermon ii, On Human Nature, sect. 10.

20 Ibid., sect. 2.

21 Preface, sect. 16.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid., sect. 20.

24 Works of Berkeley, Clarendon Press, 1901, Vol. ii, pp. 220–222. An article on The Style of Shaftesbury by the present writer will be found in MLN, xxxviii, pp. 209–215.

25 Alciphron, Dialogue iii.

26 See Works, Oxford, 1901, Vol. ii, p. 10, for a splendid summary of Dialogue iii.

27 See Sermon on Passive Obedience, Vol. iii, pp. 103–139.

28 Chapter xxii.

29 Tom Jones, Bk. iv, Ch 6.

30 Peregrine Pickle, Ch. xliii.

31 Ibid., Ch, lvii.

32 Edition printed by Routledge, London, 1904, p. 5.

33 Ibid., p. 361 ff.

34 The Power of Harmony, Bk. ii.

35 In an article entitled Shaftesbury as Stoic, PMLA, xxxviii, pp. 643–684, Esther C. Tiffany insists that Shaftesbury's doctrines of “the beautiful, ethical taste, and natural affections” “can be fully understood only on comparison with his Philosophical Regimen.” Whatever truth there may be in this point of view (See Philosophical Review, Vol. xii, pp. 451–454 and Vol. xxv, pp. 182–187 for another point of view), it must be kept in mind that the Regimen was not published until 1900, and that it did not, therefore, play any part in the philosophical or popular interpretations put on Shaftesbury's writings by those of his century.

36 See The Principal Question in Morals, 1757.