| Related sites for http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/butler.htm |
| Lemire,_Eric Photos and text relating to modifications to the author's 1967 Ford Mustang Coupe, a 2000 Dodge Dakota, a 1986 Kawasaki KX125, and a Harley-Davidson. | | Adorno,_Theodor Life and work of 20th century German philosopher and critical theorist; by Lambert Zuidervaart. | | Shmini_Atzeret_and_Simchat_Torah_Index_-_OU_ORG OU.ORG presents Shmini Atzeret/Simchat Torah - guide for the final days that follow Sukkot, with basic and advanced levels, including audio recordings of special prayers. | | Mel_White\'s_JusticeNet Biography, downloadable justice candle, news, videos for sell, and articles about the Bible and homosexuality, | | Just_Facts__Gun_Control Brief discussions of firearms used in crime and self-defense, right-to-carry laws, assault weapons, the Brady bill, school shootings, armor piercing bullets, accidents, and the Second Amendment. | | A_Rabbi_for_Your_Wedding_or_Commitment_Ceremony Rabbi in Boston is available to perform interfaith weddings, gay and lesbian commitment ceremonies, and other Jewish life cycle events. | | Animal_Links A directory of animal rights, vegetarian, and vegan links and resources. | | Posten Norway | | Abortion,_Breast_Cancer,_and_Ideology Argues that bias interferes with the conclusions between abortions and the rate of breast cancer. | | Ordinatio,_I,_dist__2,_q__6 English translation. "Whether the universal is really outside the soul, not really distinct from the individual." | | World_War_II_Stories_-_In_Their_Own_Words Aims to gather and preserve stories of ordinary people who experienced America's most turbulent period. | | OnlineResolution Online dispute resolution services. | | Digital_Copyright Book by Jessica Litman about the collision between expectations of freedom of expression and copyright law. | | Spanish-American_War_-_U_S__Navy United States Navy's Naval Historical Center information page on the Spanish American War. Summary of major actions included. | | Center_for_Whale_Research Founded to promote, conduct, and support benign research on cetaceans. | | New_Civilization_Podcast Created to help bring about the new civilization envisioned by L. Ron Hubbard in 1950. Includes debates, poetry readings, interviews with prominent Scientologists discussing social issues, and their | | Chi_Delta_-_Sonoma_State_-_Beta_Chapter Chartered in 2001, sorority's site features history, and recruitment, member, and contact information. | | Association_of_Independent_Retirees The peak body representing the views of fully and partly self-funded retirees in Australia. Events, membership, board, divisions and branches, superannuation information, and member services. | | Heisenberg\'s_Physics_and_Philosophy Key chapters of Werner Heisenberg's book outlining his philosophical conclusions | | Online_Guidance A web evangelism site created by Gospel Communications Network that presents the gospel by answering some of life's most difficult questions and challenges. |
|
|
Joseph Butler
see MY
WRITING
for explanation of this document
Joseph Butler Notes
by
John S Moore
From Book B On Bishop Butler's use of words 'internal'
'external'
and 'object' Austin Duncan-Jones (Butler's Moral Philosophy -
Penguin,
1952). writes 'There may surely be passions whose objectives are sought
through purely mental exertions, as in day dreaming'. This is supposed
to be an objection to Butler's thesis that passions etc. are movements
towards external objects. I suspect that Butler, in this particular
case,
has the right not to make himself too clear. Butler is the kind of
philosopher
whose philosophy could well have become official, it was a viable
philosophy,
a liveable orthodoxy. I can hardly believe he would have made such a
stupid
blunder as Duncan-Jones seems to think he did. His distinctions are to
be understood in terms of his philosophy as a whole. The 'objects' of
particular
passions, appetites and affections, the 'principles of least authority'
are called 'external'. External does not mean non mental, material, or
anything of that sort. It just means outside, and the question we
are faced with is 'outside of what?'. Outside human nature considered
as
a teleological system governed by 'self love' or 'conscience' or
whatever.
The principles of least authority can all without much distortion of
language
be said to have objects. These objets are not identical with the well
being
of the organism as an ultimate whole. This is the object of self-love,
which id defined as a principle of authority. This particular object is
defined as internal because it is direct accordance with 'human nature'
( in Butler's own sense) and cannot be otherwise. That which can be
otherwise
is in itself irrelevant to human nature and is thus external to it,
although
it can be organised in accordance with it.
DJ further writes of Butler's idea of self love "He [Butler] probably
assumed that most, if not all men could reflect well enough on their
own
interests if they once set themselves to do so, and that with
reflection
the general desire for happiness would gain sufficient force. But the
third
requirement, that self-love should be enlightened by knowledge and good
judgement, he seems to have entirely overlooked". Teaching one's
grandmother
how to suck eggs. Self-love is Butlers own concept, let him define it
as
he will.. Pursuit of self interest might lead anywhere, depending on
one's
view of life. An ethic might be said to define a pathway. Whatever
happiness
materially is, what is important is what can be conceptually grasped.
Happiness
is not so much a mental state, as something to be desired. It has not
yet
become as differentiated as the concept of truth with which it has
sometimes
been identified.
On p.71 DJ writes "To distinguish between the principles of uniformity
of conscience and uniformity of duty, would be superfluous only if a
certain
questionable theory were true, the theory that the sole criterion of
duty
is compliance with the moral code of one's own time and place". Here
again
"conscience" is Butler's own conception, and the question is whether
belief
in it provides a viable system of morality.
I like to see Bishop Butler as a really important self-consistent
moral
philosopher, the obverse side of the same coin of which de Sade is the
reverse. He is delineating a form of life, one which more or less
already
exists, and which is liveable and complete. De Sade's sadism and
perversion
achieve their meaning against the background of individual orientated
thought
like Butler's He cuts the Gordian knot of philosophical obsessions,
with
the possible exception of the freewill/determinism problem. Because he
has a vision of a complete and harmonious form of life, which ideas are
made to serve rather than the other way round, I think he
deserves
a place in any library, I like him because he is an individualist and
states
all his assumptions clearly. Some appeal to self interest is the only
moral
principle I can really understand as a starting point. Butler's
philosophy
is a moral vision first, and a philosophical vision only insofar as it
is first a moral vision.
From Book D When Bishop Butler was criticising the hedonistic
doctrine that all men act selfishly all of the time he pointed out that
we have a word "selfish" and a word "unselfish" and that there does not
seem to be much point in coalescing the two. So if all the world's a
stage,
and all the men and women are merely players, is there any good
point
in distinguishing what we normally call actors and actresses from the
rest
of mankind?
A 75, To cohere my desires into an ought is to move into a
higher
mode than one governed solely by considerations of narrow self
interest,
or egoism. Ultimately my interest and my morality will chime. See how I
was always drawn to Bishop Butler, despite the attraction of De Sade.
Thrasymachus, justice is the interest of the
stronger. At least that is an advance on the complete absence of
morality.
Where it is false is that it contradicts the language of justice if it
is introduced into any moral system. What about 'morality is the
interest
of the morally stronger'?
Ac 6, Human all Too Human, Nietzsche's
Spinozism, i.e. his exploration of the doctrines of psychological
egoism
and determinism, irresponsibility, in all their ramifications, moral
and
emotional.
As he later wrote, he had not read Spinoza
at the time.
But these were ideas which attracted me from a very early age. I
argued
about them with my mother and my aunt. Psychological hedonism seemed to
me blindingly obvious.
Bishop Butler famously refuted it. His refutation recalls Ryle's
exorcism
of "the ghost in the machine". Demolition of a theory that seems
obvious.
And how is the theory demolished? By referring us back to the logic of
ordinary language. And showing that you don't have to look at it in
that
way.
Unselfish actions come to seem possible again because people feel
they
are performing them.
The example my mother gave me was her gong to visit her father-in
-law,
my grandfather. She felt she did it out of duty, that her motives were
entirely altruistic and unselfish.
But the theory of psychological hedonism appears to make a lot of
sense.
It appears to clarify so much. What Butler shows is that there is
another
possible way of looking at your experience.
I cannot say I accept psychological hedonism because the other point
of view is clearly possible. Kant's position is possible in that it can
be thought. Psychological hedonism cannot prove its case to those
determined
to reject it. The same goes for determinism and irresponsibility.
Ah 91, English freedom was a concept in many people's minds
of
long-standing origin. Obviously it had its enemies, but there was an
ecological
niche for them. But English freedom and eccentricity meant that a lot
of
people had very much their own ideas on religion, within orthodoxy as
well
as without. Bishop Butler for example, was an interesting and original
thinker, orthodox in a technical sense, but espousing what comes very
close
to an egoistic ethic, quite eccentric in traditional Christian terms.
Ai 262, Hobbes
is good, Butler is good. If Butler does not identify morality with
egoistic
self interest, at least he has not led it astray, like later
utilitarianism.
After Hobbes people wrote in a time of settled peace. The judgement of
and condemnation of natural impulse seemed to come it with the
utilitarians.
The unhealthy exaltation of benevolence in condemnation of impulse and
instinct.
Ai 286, Reading Butler's Sermons. He does not refute Hobbes
or La Rochefoucauld, though he claims to do so in the name of common
sense.
What Hobbes is concerned to deny is not that there is something called
benevolence. Butler's deistic world. A fixed order of things. Self
love.
Up to a point and in a sense he is right, but in another obtuse.
Atomisation of the passions. Ancestor of associationism,
behaviourism,
utilitarianism and all that. Element of the faux naïf.
Thesis of the will to power. That there is an unconscious will which
is a not simply self love, as Butler understands it, but a
strength
of passion beyond what is explicit. There are hidden motives to be
analysed
in terms of beliefs held. The deistic model of the universe is static,
i.e. there is a psychology which presupposes a given set of beliefs and
values.
Ai 290, One rages not against hierarchy as such, but against
the domination of irrational values and ideas. Hierarchy not a
hierarchy
of merit, so much as a mere 'know your place' sort of hierarchy. The
upper
class fool. Increasingly unredeemed in a work obsessed society by signs
of inspiration.
The pain, of which one may be conscious, will not be noticed by
those
who enjoy its fruits. Butler's psychology fails to acknowledge all the
suppression to which it gives support, all the desire that is denied
expression.
Preach benevolence, peace and love, provided one's own power is not
challenged..
Selfishness becomes explicit when all desires and potential desires
throughout
the system are explicated.
Many of the traits criticised are its creativity.
Explicating all the desires, it cannot be the case that "abundance"
would put an end to the will to power, that the will to power is a
struggle
for scarce resources and that scarcity could be remedied. The very
nature
of society and social interaction means that the required goods must be
scarce. It is as with a dog pack. Not everyone can be leader. This
applies
in so many fields of human activity..
Am 279, Education. A father's exposure to teenage culture.
Ragga
music driving the neighbours mad. Crudeness of appetite. The power of
appetite
driving out all considered thought. Driving out the power of reason. In
encouraging egoism, I do not want encourage the sort of egoism I have
in
mind.
Thinking of the 18th century I am tempted to agree with
Butler's
attack on psychological hedonism. I believe in a rational egoism. But
what
one teaches when one teaches the power of nature, had a moral and
religious
dimension, or anti-moral anti-religious. It is the assertion of a value
against an accepted value. And freedom of thought, will to power,
perversity,
are the main motive in holding that value, not a chafing at mere
restraint.
So education presents a difficult problem. One wants to pass on
one's
own values, but passes on something quite different.
Aw 119, Butler’s
Analogy. The defence
of freewill against 18th century ideas of necessity. He
defends our ordinary
ways of talking against philosophical attack and does it with
cleverness and
originality. Establishing the point that his intellectual enemies can
be shown
to be wrong. Butler’s
reading of
the scripture is very plausible. His approach reminds me of my own
reading of Nietzsche.
Everything fits into a plausible rational scheme, different from Deism
but not
very much so.
Aw
123&, From today’s perspective we can see that he was
wrong in defending the historicity of the Christian revelation. Clever
as his arguments
are for believing in the miraculous testimony, they are wrong. Given
he was
being honest there must have been factors affecting him which clouded
his
judgment. That said, his views are tolerant and not unattractive.
Mostly the
book is addressed to Deists, but not all of it.. Butler
and
the moral
sense arguments he says he has not used to defend Christianity. How
these
suggest Kant.
‘Thus I have argued upon the principles of the Fatalists, which I do not believe: and have omitted a thing of the utmost importance which I do believe, the moral fitness and unfitness of actions, prior to all will whatever; which I apprehend as certainly to determine the Divine conduct, as speculative truth and falsehood necessarily determine the Divine judgment.’
His idea of the moral consensus
of humanity, especially of Christendom,
one imagines as going right back to Anglo Saxon England.
Certainly the moral idea, language, implanted from childhood
to support religion. Natural religion which he accepts, religion
itself, largely
argued in terms of support for morality.
In his dissertation Of Personal
Identity he employs old
ideas of substance.
The moral intuitions about freedom and desert, that can tend
to usurp religion. The atmosphere on which Kant drew.
Butler’s justification
of ordinary ways of speaking against philosophical criticism is very
clever and
perceptive, but it might be thought he goes too far. He defends
revelation, which
ultimately is not all that reasonable. A funny sort of rationalism,
rescuing
what may seem quite childish concepts. He is very rational about his
beliefs.
Sin and retribution. Personal identity. Being punished for
past sins. The primitiveness of the concepts.
Ideas of guilt which are embedded in language. And from the persistence
of guilt to original sin is not too large a step. It is only one way of
looking
at morality and perhaps a childish one,
Aw 137, On personal identity.
Being blamed for actions
committed a long time ago. Original sin, past lives, inherent guilt.
Relation
of this to Kafka, and Fukuyama
on human
rights. Fukuyama’s
assertions about the human privilege, against sharing all rights with
animals.
All beneficence, all kindness, is conditional. Real lesson of Kafka’s
Metamorphosis. Loss of all
rights, of all privileged status.
back
to home page
|
|
