In the eighteenth century, something really spectacularly interesting happened in Scotland.
Now this might comes as a surprise because most people don’t think of Scotland as being
a spectacularly interesting place., bBut in the eighteenth century, [inaudible 00:00:15]
it was, because we have the dawn of a the Scottish eEnlightenment.
I like to point out to American audiences that we have yet to have an American eEnlightenment.
We just have thea Scotst's version.
So that's what we are going to focus on.
aAnd it's spectacular.
You' have a small, dank country covered in hoofshills, sheep, and heather, and it produces
philosophical and economic geniuses who have influenced not just on their compatriots but
have influence on economics and philosophy even today.
aAnd one of the giants of the Scottish Eenlightenment is Francis Hutcheson.
Hutcheson was not himself Scots,t he was Irish.
But, he moved to Scotland as soon as he possibly could, which is a hallmarkwhole [inaudible
00:01:00] of his obvious genius.
Hutcheson was fantastic.
Hutcheson is the Scottish eEnlightenment equivalent of a blue touch paper on a firework.
YouIt was light ited and it starts burning, burning and then suddenly the whole thing
just explodes, because Hutcheson has a tremendous influence on many of his contemporaries.
iIn particular, he has influence on Adam Smith and David Hume.
Moreover Hutcheson's views resonate today.
We have many prominent bioethicists who have the years of precedence presidents, such as
Leon Kass with George W. Bush, who offer a form of Hutchesonianinsonian moral sentimentalism
as a justification for their views in bio ethics.
So Hutcheson, writing in the 18th eighteenth century, resonates today and is still tremendously
influential.
So what is important about Hutcheson?
The most important thing about Hutcheson is his sentimentalist approach to morality.
Hutcheson recognized and accepted, as everybody in the eighteenth18th century and now does,
that people have five senses: sight, hearing, taste, touch, and the like.
But, Hutcheson held that people have three further senses: they have a public sense,
a sense of honor, and a moral sense.
Now Hutcheson believed that these are genuine senses, but he didn’t think that there wais
anything spooky or mysterious about them.
They’re are very straightforward in their operation.
Let's give you an example.
Hutcheson believes that persons have a public sense.
You feel pleasure as a person of a person's happiness;, you feel pain over their lack
of success or their misfortune.
aAnd this comes perfectly naturally and without any intermediate judgment.
It is, after all, a sense.
Aand notice how your, other senses work.?
You smell rotten milk, which is a common experience in Scotland.
You don’t sit down and judge this milk is rotten and then have a scent.
yYou just smell it and it hits you, and you smell the rottenness of the milk.
For public sense, for Hutcheison, it works just like that.
You see somebody experiencing misfortune; you feel sadness as a result of this.
You see somebody experiencing good fortune, and you feel happy as a result of this.
This is something that people experience every day, not just with respect to real people
but also with respect to fictional characters.
You see movies: the hero does badly, you feel unhappy.
The hero does well, you feel very happy indeed —especially, it seems, if the hero happens
to be a little furryairy dog; people like little fairy furry dogs.
But, notice what the point is for Hutcheison.?
People have a genuine public sense.
They also have a sense of honor.
aAnd by this Hutcheison means, something quite specific.
You have athe sense of honor when you receive appropriate gratitude for a good deed that
you have done.
It makes you feel happy.
You don’t sit down and think that gratitude was appropriate; rather, you simply receive
it and you feel happiness as a result.
Again, like the unhappiness or the happiness that you experience from your public sense
when you see the fortune or misfortunes of others, your sense of honor leads you to have
certain affections.
aAnd so, too, does your sense operate in this way with respect to your moral sense.
aAnd here is where we move into the core of Hutcheison's moral philosophy.
You persons have a moral sense, claims Hutcheison.
You feel approval when you recognize thatwith persons havethat performed good, virtuous
actions.
You feel disapproval, naturally, when you feel, believe, inand sense that they haven’t.
Let's give you a very simple example.
You are having —you are out for meal with friends, and somebody collects the money and
then they are supposed to pay your server.
They do pay the server, but they leave a really bad tip.
You might feel that's the wrong thing to do.
You feel this almost visceral this real reaction to your friend's poor behavior.
You don’t sit there and think, is this a rational self- interested action or not.?
You simply think, that was not the right thing to do.
Your moral sense is offended.
Now, you might think, where does this moral sense come from?
Why are we concerned about the interests of other people?
The For Hutchieson the answer is straightforward.
We have a calm, stable disposition towards all the universal benevolence.
In this, Hutchieson is reacting against the psychological egoism of Thomas Hobbes, who
held that persons were irrationally self -interested and alwaysmost acted in their own self interest.
Not at all, claims Hutcheison.
People are instead generally benevolent.
Moreover, for Hutcheison, Thomas Hobbes is not onlyany wrong in ascribing rational self
interest to agents, he’s it is also dangerous.
Bbecause if we think that we are just purely rationally self interested and we fail to
recognize our natural benevolence, we might not try to develop our benevolent affections.
iIndeed, we might even try to crush them.
Now, one might say in response to Hutcheison, couldn’t we just say that our benevolence
works to our advantage?
After all, we tend to likeght to associate with benevolent persons, so if you’re a
are benevolent person, you're going to gain certain social advantages.
Hutcheison's response is straightforward.
Not so.
Benevolence can't be reduced to self interest, because benevolence, remember, is simply an
affection; it’s a in some moral sense.
We don’t mediate our senses through the will.
[inaudible 00:06:40] mMoreover, there might be certain act of benevolence which actually
cut against our obvious self interest.
For example, you might be a donor to the Institute for Humane Studies or to your alumni association.
You could have used something else withof that money, which would give you more obvious
and immediate gratification, but you don’t.
Because you think it is important to support the causes that you believe are worthy or
to support your alma mater’s fund- driving effort.
So you act benevolently even if you recognize this might not be strictly in your self interest.
For Hutchieson, then, that benevolence and self interest are going to come apart.
Hutchieson is incredibly influential.
He develops a moral sentimentalist account of morality which influences David Hume and
Adam Smith, two other giants of the Scottish eEnlightenment.
HeIt is important for us today because he influences many of the debates which affect
public policy, such as the views of Leon Kass.
aAnd, finally, he’s is simply somebody who offers and an account of human nature wthat
we might like to take on board when we are considering how to arrange institutions.
aAfter all,.
Iif Hutchieson is right and people are generally benevolent, we might want to arrange our institutions
very differently thanfor if we considered people to be in a Hobbesian sense rational,
self -interested predators of one another.
So if Hutchieson's view of this is correct, we are going to have a very different view
of society thanwhen if Hobbes is correct.
aAnd now, let's turn to Adam Smith and David Hume and see where they take the Hutchieson
firework.