Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T07:03:31.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utility and Humanity: The Quest for the Honestum in Cicero, Hutcheson, and Hume

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2009

James Moore
James Moore
Affiliation:
Concordia University, Montreal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hume considered An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) incomparably the best of all his writings. In the argument advanced here, I propose that Hume's preference for the Enquiry may be linked to his admiration of Cicero, and his work, De Officiis. Cicero's attempt to discover the honestum of morality in De Officiis had a particular relevance and appeal for philosophers of the early eighteenth century who were seeking to establish what they called the foundation of morality. One of those philosophers was Francis Hutcheson; his differences with his contemporaries and with Hume are reviewed in the second and third parts of the essay. In the fourth and final section, I examine Hume's attempt to reconcile the foundation of morality, as he under-stood it, the sentiment of humanity, with the principles of utility and agreeableness. And an attempt is made, finally, to explain why Hume's critics (James Balfour, Thomas Reid) perceived Hume's Enquiry to be the work of an Epicurean and a sceptic.

Type
Articles
Information
Utilitas , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , November 2002 , pp. 365 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

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 Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. Beauchamp, Tom L., Oxford, 1998Google Scholar. References to sections, parts, and page numbers of this edition are placed in parentheses in the text.

2 Letter to SirDalrymple, David, Bart, , 3 May 1753, The Letters of David Hume, ed.Greig, J. Y. T., Oxford, 1932, vol. 1, pp. 174 fGoogle Scholar.

3 ‘My Own Life’, prefaced to Letters, vol. 1, p. 4.

4 There are many scholarly interpretations of the moral philosophies of Hutcheson and Hume. Among the scholars who have written on this subject are Norman Kemp Smith, David Daiches Raphael, Arthur N. Prior, Charles W. Hendel, William Frankena, David Fate Norton, and James King. For a more complete bibliography, I would invite the reader to consult my essays ‘Hume and Hutcheson’, Hume and Hume's Connexions, ed. Stewart, M. A. and Wright, John, Edinburgh, 1994Google Scholar and ‘Hutcheson's Theodicy’, The Scottish Enlightenment: Essays in Reinterpretation, ed. Wood, Paul, Rochester, New York, 2000Google Scholar.

5 Browning, Reed, Political and Constitutional Ideas of the Court Whigs, Baton Rouge, 1982Google Scholar, ch. 8.

6 McLachlan, Herbert, English Education under the Test Acts, Manchester, 1931Google Scholar, passim.

7 Editions of this translation were published in 1699, 1706, 1714, 1720, 1722, 1732 and 1739. In the following paper, citations from Cicero's Offices are taken from the translation by Edmonds, Cyrus R., Cicero's Three Books of Offices or Moral Duties … Literally Translated, etc., London, 1887Google Scholar, which seems to me to convey the spirit of the text most faithfully. The copy of Cicero's De Officiis that was in Hume's possession and remains available to scholars forms part of the collected works: Opera Cum Delectu Commentarioriam, Paris, 9 vols. It is housed in the McGill University Library. See Norton, David Fate and Norton, Mary J., The David Hume Library, Edinburgh, 1996: item 275, p. 82Google Scholar.

8 Letter of Montesquieu to Monseigneur de Fitz James, 8 October 1750, cited in Shackleton, Robert, Montesquieu: A Critical Biography, Oxford, 1961, p. 70Google Scholar.

9 Cited in Collected Works of Dugald Stewart, ed. SirHamilton, William, Edinburgh, 1854, vol. 1, p. 178n2Google Scholar.

10 Edinburgh University Library MS. Gen. 74D. See Robertson, J. C. Stewart, ‘Cicero among the shadows: Scottish prelections of virtue and duty’, Rivista Critica di Storia delta Filosofia, xxxviii (1983)Google Scholar.

11 Rivers, Isabel, Reason, Grace and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660–1780, vol. 2: Shaftesbury to Hume, Cambridge, 2000, p. 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Collins, Anthony, A Discourse of Free-Thinking, London, 1713, pp. 138 f.Google ScholarToland, John, ‘Cicero Illustratus’ [1712], A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Toland, London, 1726Google Scholar, vol. 1.

12 Richard Bentley, Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking, London, 1713Google Scholar. See Rivers, pp. 29–31.

13 Boase, Alan M., The Fortunes of Montaigne: A History of the Essays in France, 1580–1689, London, 1935, p. 428Google Scholar.

14 Bernier, Monsieur, Three Discourses of Happiness, Virtue, and Liberty: Collected from the Works of the Learn'd Gassendi, London, 1699, pp. 47Google Scholar, 71–6, 93–7, 123 ff., 207, 327, 332–4.

15 Cited by Boase, p. 255.

16 Les Offices de Ciceron, trans. Bois, Phillipe Goisbaud Du, Paris, 1691Google Scholar.

17 For a contemporary Stoic reading of De Officiis as a defence of the principles of the Roman republic, see Long, A. A., ‘Cicero's Politics in de Officiis’, Justice and Generosity, ed. Laks, A. and Schofield, M., Cambridge, 1995Google Scholar. For a more sceptical reading see Wood, Neal, Cicero's Social and Political Thought, Los Angeles, 1988, pp. 58 ffGoogle Scholar.

18 Edmonds (trans.), 1.27, p. 48.

19 Ibid., 2.22, p. 110.

20 Ibid., 2.24, p. 112.

21 Ibid., 1.9, p. 18.

22 Ibid., 1.17, p. 31.

23 In On the Ends of Good and Evil, Cicero had defined the honestum in the Stoic manner as a quality abstracted from all utility, which can be praised justly for itself, without profit or reward. De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, trans. Rackham, H., London, 1914, p. 132Google Scholar. In that work, Cicero presented the Epicurean theory in bk. 1 and criticized it from the Stoic perspective in bk. 2. He presented the Stoic theory in bk. 3 and criticized it in bk. 4 from the Academic perspective. In bk. 5 he presented the Academic theory itself. As Hume read Cicero, the Academic philosophy represented a sceptical position inconsistent with Stoicism. From Hume's perspective, but not from Reid's, as will become clear in the sequel (n. 61, below), the Stoic position taken by Cicero in bk. 2 of De Finibus was superseded by the more sceptical perspective of the later books of De Finibus, and, particularly, De Officiis, where the problem was precisely to discover the compatibility of the honestum and the utile.

24 Wollaston, William, The Religion of Nature Delineated [1725], 6th edn., London, 1738Google Scholar.

25 Carmichael, Gershom, ‘A Synopsis of Natural Theology’ (1729)Google Scholar, maintained that ‘every rightly founded distinction of moral good and evil in our actions … ought to be deduced from the perceived relationship of those actions to God and from a knowledge of the existence, perfections and providence of the Supreme Deity. I used the same method in laying the foundations of moral doctrine in the first and second supplements to Pufendorf. But some have thought otherwise, so much that, in recent years, schemes which utterly divorce morality from religion have been put before the public and commended to the world by a highly attractive combination of ingenuity and eloquence.’ See Natural Rights on the Threshold of the Scottish Enlightenment: the Writings of Gershom Carmichael, ed. Moore, James and Silverthorne, Michael, Indianapolis, 2002, p. 230Google Scholar.

26 On the diffusion of Shaftesbury's thought in this period, see Rivers, vol. 2, chs. 2–3.

27 ‘Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author’, pt. 3, sect. 3, in Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Third Earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, ed. Klein, Lawrence E., Cambridge, 1999, p. 150Google Scholar.

28 ‘Miscellaneous Reflections on the Preceding Treatises and other Critical Subject’, 3, in Characteristics, pp. 415–17n.

29 See above, n. 23 and below, n. 61.

30 ‘Miscellaneous Reflections’, p. 415.

31 Mandeville, Bernard, ‘A Search into the Nature of Society’ [1723]Google Scholar, The Fable of the Bees: or Private Vices, Public Benefits, ed. Kaye, F. B., Oxford, 1924, vol. 1, p. 331Google Scholar.

32 Hutcheson, Francis, An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue: in Two Treatises, London, 1725Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., pp. 125, 153, 179.

34 Ibid., p. 178.

35 Ibid., pp. 113 f.

36 This observation was made in the manuscript of ‘A System of Moral Philosophy’, GUL MS. Gen. 110, fol. 56. It has been struck out, by Hutcheson himself or by the editor, William Leechman, when preparing the manuscript for publication. It does not appear in the published text. For discussion, see ‘Hutcheson's Theodicy’, The Scottish Enlightenment: Essays in Reinterpretation, ed. Wood, Paul, Rochester, New York, 2000, p. 495Google Scholar.

37 Balguy, John, The Foundation of Moral Goodness, London, 1728Google Scholar; repr. British Moralists, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge, Indianapolis, 1964, vol. 2, p. 61.

38 Burnet, Gilbert, Letters Between the Late Mr. Gilbert Burnet, and Mr. Hutchinson, Concerning the true Foundation of Virtue or Moral Goodness, London, 1735Google Scholar. See esp. preface and postscript.

39 Francis Hutcheson, ibid.; also Illustrations upon the Moral Sense, sect. 1, esp. additions made to 3rd edn. (1742).

40 Campbell, Archibald, An Enquiry into the Original of Moral Virtue … with Some Reflections on a late Book, intitled An Enquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Value, Edinburgh, 1733Google Scholar.

41 Ibid., p. 309.

42 Letter from Hume, David to Hutcheson, Francis, 17 September 1739, The Letters of David Hume, ed. Greig, J. Y. T., Oxford, 1932, vol. 1, pp. 32–5Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., pp. 33 f.

44 See Lovejoy, Arthur O., Reflections on Human Nature, Baltimore, 1961Google Scholar, lecture 5.

45 Hutcheson, Francis, A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy [first published in Latin, 1742], Glasgow, 1747, p. 21Google Scholar. This sentence was part of material added in the 2nd edn., 1745.

46 Smith, Adam, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L., Indianapolis, 1982 [1759], pp. 300Google Scholar f. Smith would have heard Hutcheson argue in the same manner, when, as a student at the University of Glasgow, he attended Hutcheson's lectures on metaphysics: pt. 3, ‘De Deo’, Synopsis Metaphysicae, Glasgow, 1742Google Scholar; 2nd edn., 1744.

47 A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy, pp. ii f.

48 Letter to Mure, William of Caldwell, , 4 August 1744, Letters of David Hume, vol. 1, p. 58Google Scholar.

49 Ibid.

50 Roger Emerson, ‘The “Affair” at Edinburgh and the “Project” at Glasgow: The Politics of Hume's Attempts to Become a Professor', Stewart and Wright (ed.).

51 Stewart, M. A., The Kirk and the Infidel, Lancaster, 1994Google Scholar.

52 Printed in Hume, David, A Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend in Edinburgh, ed. Mossner, Ernest C. and Price, John V., Edinburgh, 1967, p. 30Google Scholar.

53 An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, p. 177. See also Box, Mark, The Suasive Art of David Hume, Princeton, 1990, pp. 239 ffGoogle Scholar.

54 Home, Henry, Essays on the Principles of Morality and Natural Religion, Edinburgh, 1751, pp. 103–9Google Scholar. [Dalrymple, David], Some Late Opinions Concerning the Foundation of Morality, Examined, London, 1753, pp. 14 ffGoogle Scholar. [Balfour, James], A Delineation of the Nature and Obligation of Morality, with Reflexion upon Mr. Hume's Book, intitled, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Edinburgh, 1753, pp. 59–62Google Scholar.

55 Bernier, , pp. 311 f. Epicurus's Morals, London, 1712, p. 147Google Scholar. This work attributed to Digby, John was for the most part a translation of La Morale d'Epicure, avec des reflexions, Paris, 1685Google Scholar by the Baron des Coustures.

56 Philosophical Essays Concerning Natural Religion (1748), sect. 11, ‘Of the Practical Consequences of Natural Religion’, later published as An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, sect. 11, ‘Of a Particular Providence and a Future State’.

57 Reid, Thomas, Essays on the Active Powers of Man, Edinburgh, 1788, p. 411Google Scholar.

58 Balfour, pp. 123 ff. and draft of a letter from Balfour to Hume (which may not have been sent) in Balfour-Melville, Barbara, The Balfours of Pilrig, Edinburgh, 1907, pp. 113–16Google Scholar.

59 Letter from Hume, to the Author of ‘The Delineation of the Nature and Obligation of Morality’, 15 03 1758, in The Letters of David Hume, vol. 1, pp. 172–4Google Scholar.

60 Hume's eighteenth-century critics disagreed among themselves on this subject. Balfour recognized that Hume had appealed to a sentiment of common humanity to provide a foundation for utility (Balfour, p. 132). But he thought that this sentiment would prove too weak in the characters of most men. Reid endeavoured to turn the authority of Cicero against Hume, citing the definition of the honestum used by Cicero in De Finibus, bk. 2 (see above n. 16) as evidence that Hume had deviated from Cicero in this matter; that Hume's morals were merely and irredeemably Epicurean (Reid, p. 410).

61 ‘Of Cruelty’, Complete Essays of Montaigne, trans. Frame, Donald M., Stanford, 1958, p. 318Google Scholar.

62 Voltaire, , Dictionnaire Philosophique, ed. Benda, Julien, Paris, 1961, p. 401Google Scholar.

63 Hume, , ‘Of Refinement in the Arts’, Philosophical Works, ed. Green, T. H. and Grose, T. H, London, 1875, vol. 3, p. 302Google Scholar.

64 Hume, , History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution of 1688, London, 1782, vol. 1, pp. 30 fGoogle Scholar.

65 This paper was written in its present form for a symposium on ‘Utility and Sympathy in Hume and Smith’, convened by Fred Rosen at University College, London. I am also grateful to Shannon Stimson for inviting me to present the paper at a seminar at the University of California, Berkeley. An earlier version of the argument, presented in Milan at a conference convened by Ronchetti, Emanuele and Mazza, Emilio, was published, in Italian, in Filosofia e Cultura nel Settecento Britannico, ed. Santucci, Antonio, vol. 2, Bologna, 2000Google Scholar. I am indebted to my co-participants in the London symposium, Knud Haakonssen and Nicholas Phillipson, and others present in this and other symposia for their remarks and to Roger Emerson, Tony Long, John Robertson, Ian Ross, Sandy Stewart, Frits van Holthoon, and Paul Wood for comments on the paper.