Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 11 Enlightenment

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 11

Enlightenment


After the Renaissance, individualism was a powerful new force in the world. This was a time when people began to try to figure out for themselves how the natural world worked.  They stressed logical thinking and scientific experimentation.  This period in history is called the Enlightenment.  People became curious about everything, and wanted to study everything, including themselves.  As part of this, they began to look again at ideas about right and wrong.  But this time, they saw people as being part of nature, and subject to the same natural laws as everything else.

Benedict Spinoza

One important ethical thinker of this time was Benedict Spinoza.  Let's see what he had to say.

People living in nature have a right to life, and a right to do whatever is necessary to protect and better their life.  In other words, people will always protect themselves by trying to get what they think is good, and trying to avoid what they think is bad.  This is just common sense.  Problems arise because people are ruled by their emotions.  Emotions are powerful urges that motivate actions.  Because emotions are not carefully thought out, they are unpredictable and dangerous.  When people are ruled by emotions, they often argue and fight with each other. The only way to protect yourself from violence is to threaten greater violence in return. This is why nature is so insecure.

Spinoza, Ethics 4,XXXVI Note II, ParaphraseEthics Workbook I

What you think about Spinoza’s opinion of emotions? Is he right about emotions leading to conflict and to violence? Try to give some examples from your own experience.

People naturally look for a safer way to live.  This leads to the invention of governments and laws.  Laws are written as an artificial way for people to create peace and harmony.  This is the creation of what we call a state, and the people in it are called citizens.  Good and bad are created by the state in the form of rules that the citizens must obey.  Whatever promotes peace and harmony is good; whatever promotes discord is bad.  It's the rules that define right and wrong.  Good means to obey the law, bad means to disobey the law.

 Spinoza,Ethics 4 XXXVI Note II, paraphrase

Spinoza saw that force ruled in nature and that this solution of creating a powerful authority to govern was no better; one way or the other, force still ruled. This would changehe thought, if reason rather than emotions directed human actions.  Act according to reason, and everyone will agree. Harmony will result.  This sounds good.  But why should it work?

Like Aristotle, Spinoza believed that human reason, or the ability to think logically, was at the root of human nature.  In fact, to be human was to be able to think.  He concluded from this that human reason could never be out of sync with human nature, because reason

was the key element in human nature.  In other words, if your actions are ruled by reason, you won't ever act in a way contrary to your own best interests.  Here is how he said it:

Everyone, by the laws of nature, desires what they see as good and tries to avoid what they see as bad.  If their decisions are governed by reason, which is the basis of human nature, they can only do what is also good for human nature.

Now here's the tricky part.

So, whatever is good for an individual’s human nature must also be good for everyone else’s.  Therefore, when people act according to reason, and not emotion, they will always be in harmony with each other.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 XXXV simplified

This is a really good argument.  See if you can explain it in your own words.

And, he says that even though reason may require you to give up something personally because it would not be in the best interests of everyone for you to have it or to do it, that this would still make you happy.  In fact it’s the only way to true happiness. 

Promoting the good of others creates happiness because it leads to self-esteem.  When a person acts in another's interest and then thinks about it, he or she will approve of themselves.  Spinoza called this self-approval, which he said was the highest object for which we can hope.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 LII, note

Spinoza seems to be saying that true happiness results from feeling good about ourselves, having self-esteem, and being satisfied with what we did, not from any external thing we might get.  Think about this idea carefully.  Is it true? Then write a short essay telling what you think.

Here is one last quote from Spinoza:

People who are governed by reason don't want anything for themselves that they don't want for the rest of mankind, and because of this, they are just,faithful, and honorable in their conduct.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 VIII

Why does this look so familiar? Do you see a theme developing in the history of ethical thought? What is it? Prepare to discuss this.

Immanuel Kant

Remember we said that the Enlightenment was a time of science when people tried to figure things out by studying nature.  Not all people believed that right and wrong could be understood that way.  One very important philosopher of that time was Immanuel Kant. He believed that he could figure out rules of ethics with pure logic, and reason, without looking at the real world at all. Kant believed that if people studied the real world to figure out rules for right and wrong they would end up with different answers because they would be reasoning from different particular situations.  He wrote long and very complicated books trying to prove this.  His works became the most famous ever written about right and wrong.

Kant’s writing is complicated, but his conclusions are very simple. He wanted to find one rule everyone must obey all the time.  He gave this rule a fancy name, the Categorical Imperative. We will call it The Rule Everyone Must Obey All the Time. Here's how Kant said it:

I should never do anything unless I can honestly say I believe everyone else should always do the same thing.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 1Ethics Workbook I

What he came up with sounds a lot like the Golden Rule we've been seeing over and over again.  Only Kant believed he improved upon it.

Here's how Kant said it works:

If I'm in trouble is it OK to make promises that I don't intend to keep? It may be profitable in the short run to lie, but is it right? Let's word this in a different way, and then apply our ethical rule.  Should I lie to get out of a tight spot? Will this hold up as a rule that everyone must follow all the time? Can I say, “everyone should lie to get what they want?” If we put it this way, it's clear that I couldn't say this because it would mean that all promises would be no good.  No one could ever trust anyone else, and this would destroy society.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 2

The key to using Kant’s rule is that you must think carefully and logically.  Kant  and Spinoza both thought that as long as everyone relied on reason they would always agree.  Here are some more examples Kant gave to test his rule:

A man is very disappointed with his life and asks himself if it's OK to commit suicide.  The man says: “I want to act in my own best interests, since I see only pain and suffering ahead, I will shorten my life.”  Then he asks: “can  this be a rule everyone must obey all of the time?”  The answer is no, because it's a contradiction to say I will destroy a life in order to do what's best for that life.

You can also see what Kant means by logical thinking, and reason. Let's read another of his examples:

A man is rich and comfortable.  He wonders if he should help poor and suffering people.  He says: “why should I care?  I don't take anything from poor and suffering people, and so I'm not obligated to give them anything either.” Can this be a law everyone must obey all the time?  The answer is no because it would mean that you yourself could never expect any help, even if you desperately needed it.  It would be illogical for anyone to want the world to be like this. 

See how Kant is not using an argument based on the facts of any particular case, but looking only at pure logic.  Make up an ethical problem and see if Kant’s Rule works.  Try to think it through without using any specific details.

Compare Kant’s Rule: never do anything unless you can honestly say you believe everyone else should do the same thing, with Golden Rule stated: Do to others only what you would have them do to you.  Now reread Kant’s example about giving charity. Can you show any ways in which following the Golden Rule causes possible problems? Try to think of some other examples of ways that the traditional Golden Rule doesn’t work and see if Kant’s idea works better.

Dignity and Respect

Man's ability to reason was really important to Enlightenment thinkers, especially to Immanuel Kant.  Kant said that you could put a price on everything in the world except a human being.  A human being was of infinite value.  The reason for this was that humans were free, and ecided for themselves about the course of their lives.  They don't exist to serve any other person or for any other reason but to be free for themselves.  He called this human dignity.  People alone have dignity.

Here is how Kant put it:

People exist only to live their own lives as they  see fit, and must never be used by others just to further their own desires.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 2

Here is the important point.  Since all people view themselves as having dignity, Kant’s rule requires everyone to give everyone else the same standing.  In other words, if you don’t want to end up with a world full of users, you can never use anyone else only to further your own purposes.   This is what Kant meant by treating other people with respect.

That you must never use anyone else only for your purposes doesn't mean that it's wrong to expect someone to clean your table in a restaurant, or to ask a clerk to show you a pair of shoes in a shoe store.  The word  only is the key. Try to think of some examples of a person using another person in a way that would violate Kant’s rule of respect.  Do you think this is a good ethical rule to follow? How do you define respect? Why is having respect for other people so important?

Ethics Workbook I

©Anthony Tiatorio 1999