Religion, Morality, & Democracy within the United States of America

Introduction

Entering the course this semester, I had the view that Benjamin Franklin’s most important contributions during the Enlightenment were that of his actions as a statesman during the American Revolution. As is commonly known, Franklin was an extremely important figure during the Revolution and in the early formation of the United States. However, as we learned this semester, Franklin was much more than a statesman; he was a groundbreaking scientist, a renowned writer and publisher, and many other things. In short, he was the first true American, using his many talents to propel himself from rags to riches. Moreover, with regards to this discussion, Franklin and many other Enlightenment scholars that we read this semester wrote extensively on the topic of religion, and on its influence on the entire Enlightenment movement. Throughout the semester we asserted that religion was a very controversial topic with regards to how it fit into society during the Enlightenment, and with what its true and lasting influence really was during the time. Thus, in this discussion, I will use the readings from throughout the semester, student blog posts, and ideas that we touched upon throughout the semester, to connect the writings and ideas from the Enlightenment concerning religion to that of post-Enlightenment writers on the relation between religion and politics. I strive to do this in order to make the argument that the Enlightenment was more than simply an intellectual and scientific movement. The Enlightenment greatly enhanced human understanding of the world which in turn allowed for the inhabitants of the American colonies to be able to form the democracy we now know as the United States of America, as they were able to understand the place religion should have with regards to politics and within a liberal-democratic state such as the United States.

Franklin on Religion

A central movement with regards to religion during the Enlightenment period was about challenging commonly held notions and ingrained beliefs. In the introduction to The Portable Enlightenment Reader, Isaac Kramnick notes that Enlightenment social ideas were only able to prosper due “to the individualistic claims of self-made assertive men” who achieved their place through hard work, skill, and talent (i.e. Franklin), as opposed to aristocrats who were simply born into privilege (Kramnick ix). The beginnings of the Enlightenment are marked in Britain by the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which is largely known for “ushering in religious toleration” (Kramnick x). Furthermore, Kramnick notes that “Central to the Enlightenment agenda was the assault on religious superstition and its replacement by a rational religion in which God became no more than the supreme intelligence or craftsman who had set the machine that was the world to run according to its own natural and scientifically predictable laws” (xii). This idea of deism was largely seen in many of the Franklin readings on religion this semester.

As Jess Wisiackas notes in his blog post “Religion in the lives of Newton and Bacon,” these two renowned scientists “both valued a belief in God, or a higher power, despite the movement towards reason and science during the Enlightenment period.” Wisiackas elaborates on this idea by pointing out that Bacon “rejected atheism because of his belief that it served as a handicap to philosophy.” As can be seen, even during a time when the concept of religion itself was being challenged (primarily by scientists), they still recognized that fully eradicating a belief in a higher power was not beneficial to society. Wisiackas further discusses religion in another post, “Franklin—dishing out what he can’t take in return.” He draws on Franklin’s writings in Printer’s Errors and Rules for The New-England Courant, noting that Franklin claimed: “Religion is our safety and security, and if we lose the Honour of that, no small part of our strength and Glory will be lost with it” (Wisiackas). Here Franklin is stating that the belief in a higher power was necessary for the citizenry. Furthermore, along the lines of the idea of religious toleration, Wisiackas writes, “Franklin preached the acceptance of all churches despite his affiliation as a Puritan.” This point is quite important, as at this time the idea of religious toleration was still budding, and thus was fairly controversial. Moreover, Franklin’s later ideas of the belief in deism are seen in these two writings as Wisiackas correctly points out that “It is evident that Franklin has tolerance for any pious man, but for the individual who has no religious association he has no patience. Not only does he not have patience for the non-religious man, he will publicly defame the publication of the individual who does not emphasize or perhaps deemphasizes the church in a way that does not suit Franklin.” Thus, Franklin vehemently expressed the importance of the existence of religion at the time, although he seems to appear somewhat ambiguous with regards to exactly how he wished religion to exist within America.

Franklin further builds upon and diversifies his ideas with regards to religion in his work entitled, “A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain.” As Rachael H notes in her post, “A Moral Code,” Franklin asserts “that God is infinitely wise, good, and powerful” in order to show that there is no such thing as “…evil and therefore all people are esteemed equally in the eyes of the creator.” Rachael notes that this Deist conclusion that Franklin reaches in this piece is inherently anti-Christian as it essentially asserts that all beliefs are equal. Yet, as we all know by reading Franklin’s autobiography, he eventually deserts his earlier belief of deism as he believed it “was not useful in living a moral life” (Rachael H). Despite the fact that Franklin abandoned the idea of deism, he still ultimately believed that what was most important with regards to religion was that of adhering to a strict moral code and in turn living a moral life.

Jonathan Braun also writes upon the idea of religion as being inherently tied to that of morality in his post, “It’s Just Sex.” His contribution to this discussion is framed around the excerpt of John Cleland’s extremely graphic and controversial Fanny Hill. Braun writes, “When Cleland wrote the novel in the mid-Eighteenth Century, it was immediately criticized by the bishop of London who called it ‘an open insult upon religion and good manners.’” Braun further claims, “At this time in Europe as well as in America, religion was still supposed to be the foundation upon which one built his life, morals and values. The Church was still a majorly authoritative figure…” This is absolutely correct, as the 1700s were certainly a time when America was still essentially a Christian nation, and this assertion is still relevant today as many politicians have subsequently utilized America’s founding as a Christian nation as a defense of their policies and actions while in office. Similarly, Hannah Fasick writes on the letter Franklin sent to Ezra Stiles (entitled, “As To Jesus Of Nazareth”) in her post “Private Franklin,” noting that we finally are exposed to Franklin’s “personal beliefs.” In turn, we are able to see that Franklin felt “organized religion imparts beliefs on others, sometimes to their detriment,” which goes along well with the previously stated idea that Franklin believed religion was necessary because of the morality guidelines that it offered for the citizenry, but that otherwise it was detrimental. Fasick quotes the letter: “…the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes” (Franklin 1179). Clearly Franklin is discussing the idea that God left us with the opportunity to follow a system of religion that coincided with morality, but that organized religion had corrupted this original intention that the creator had for the place of religion in the lives of citizens. Yet, of importance is that Fasick notes that “The truth of this letter seems solidified by the postscript, which politely asks Stiles to keep their communication private. It casts the letter in an even more intimate light one which separates Franklin’s private beliefs with his role as a political figure, whose declarations are carefully analyzed” (Fasick). Thus, Franklin’s discrepancy in how he wanted his ideas to be viewed publically highlights the fact that openly challenging organized religion at this time was somewhat of a risky action due to the devotion of so many citizens to their religious beliefs.

Religion During the End of the Enlightenment

In addition to Benjamin Franklin, another one of the foremost writers on religious toleration was that of John Locke in his “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” in which he argued for the removal of religion from “public life and public authority,” as he believed religion should be reserved for the private sphere of individual preference and private practice…” (Kramnick xii). Furthermore, Locke states “I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bound that lie between the one and the other. If this can not be done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men’s souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth” (Locke 82). In the letter, Locke is proposing one of the first arguments for the separation of church and state, while also proclaiming that religion should in no way influence politics or the citizenry by its existence in the public sphere. Thus, by relegating religion to the private sphere, it would still allow for the citizenry of America to have a system of morals to believe in, yet this belief would neither affect the state nor the lives of other citizens.

As stated by Kramnick in the introduction to The Portable Enlightenment Reader, “Equal opportunity and a boundless optimistic faith in progress found their eighteenth-century home in America and her revolution, which appeared to many contemporaries to embody the Enlightenment in action. Her politics, after all, were utterly secular. While the Articles of Confederation gives credit to ‘the Great Governor of the world,’ the Constitution has no mention of God whatsoever” (xviii). Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), French philosopher and mathematician, described America as of all nations “’the most enlightened, the freest and the least burdened by prejudices.’ Its respect for human rights, he wrote, was a lesson for all the peoples of the world (xviii). His praise for America in having no political or spiritual aristocracy was later followed up by another French political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville.

The Post-Enlightenment Period: Religion, Morality, and the Founding of a Nation

Tocqueville (1805-1859), writing his most important works in the early nineteenth century (the time many scholars believe we first began to see the post-Enlightenment ideals in action) is an interesting addition to the works we read this semester with regards to the topic of religion and its relationship to morality within a liberal-democratic state such as the United States. One of Tocqueville’s most famous works, Democracy in America, was published in 1835. The book is considered to be one of the first works on the post-Enlightenment (i.e. New World) period, and its allowance for the growth of democracy. Tocqueville writes with regards to nations, “they always carry the marks of their beginnings. The circumstances which accompanied their birth and contributed to their development affect the remainder of their existence” (37).

Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is an excellent account explaining why the United States was able to prosper so greatly in its early days. At the time of Tocqueville’s writings, it was apparent to him that religion was not only a great educator and positive influence on democracy in America, but that it was a necessary element to the country’s growth. On the other hand, through close analysis of his discussion on the Catholic Church in America at the time, one can ascertain that democracy was also an educator of religion. As can be seen, Tocqueville saw America’s prosperity as a product of the two-way street that had been created between religion and democracy. The two concepts were inherently interwoven in the nation’s founding, and were mutually supportive. However, by analyzing Tocqueville’s writings it appears that the foundation of democracy in America was an absolute necessity for our prosperity, whereas religion simply had to stay out of government in order to be useful. Thus, it appears that religion itself was not needed for America to prosper, but rather that the citizenry simply needed a set of moral guidelines to follow in order to hold the country together during its beginnings. Organized religion was just the only entity available at the time that provided these moral guidelines.

In the early 19^th century the nation was still recovering from the revolutionary war and the foundations of our democratic state were still being established. Religion was certainly widespread at the time (especially Protestantism and Catholicism), but upon deeper evaluation one can realize that the Christian religion and its various sects are just sets of beliefs that establish moral guidelines for one to lead their life, provide explanations for how human beings were created, what occurs when one dies, and so on. Yes, religion was a factor in maintaining peacefulness within America and among the citizenry, but to attribute the great prosperity of our nation solely to the ideals of Protestantism and Catholicism appears to be farfetched. Organized religion was simply a convenient manner in which to structure a set of morals for an emerging nation.

Tocqueville further elaborates upon the importance of religion (i.e. moral guidelines) and democracy in early America, by stating that there is a “moral world” and a “political world” (56). He continues, “Far from harming each other, these two inclinations, despite their apparent opposition, seem to walk in mutual agreement and support. Religion looks upon civil liberty as a noble exercise for man’s faculties and upon the world of politics as a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of man’s intelligence” (56). It is clear that at the time democracy and religion were interwoven, however these two words are arbitrary, as Tocqueville writes that “Liberty [not democracy]…considers religion as the guardian of morality, morality as the guarantee of law and the security that freedom will last” (56). Again, Tocqueville undermines his own argument with regards to religion educating democracy, for it is clear that the more important concept is that of morality. Religion is just the guardian of morality, and morality is the concept that guarantees the following of law from the citizenry and the security of lasting freedom for all Americans. Religion is simply a word used to describe what Tocqueville really meant: that morality was the educator of democracy.

Moreover, Tocqueville notes, “it can be said that in the United States there is no single religious doctrine which is hostile to democratic and republican institutions. All the clergy there speak the same language; opinions coincide with the laws and, to express it this way, the human mind flows in only one direction” (338). Being that all the religious doctrines (i.e. moral guidelines) coincided with the laws of the liberal-democratic society of America, it in turn created a citizenry that had a mutual bond to each other. In fact, even American priests at the time that did not admit to believing in any religious freedom, admitted to believing in the inherent right of civil liberties.

This leads to the idea of the utmost importance with regards to religion and democracy: that is, the concept of the separation of church and state. As Tocqueville writes, during his trip to America he spoke with several Catholic priests, and all of them “attributed the peaceful influence exercised by religion over their country to the separation of Church and state. I assert confidently that, during my stay in America, I did not meet a single man, priest or layman who did not agree about that” (345). These are quite powerful words when considering the idea of democracy educating religion. This is for, religious clergy members had learned and accepted that keeping the two entities separate was the best option for the country as it allowed for democracy to thrive. However, at the same time, the citizenry of the United States was still able and encouraged to believe in a particular set of moral values as it bound the nation together.

Conclusion

As stated by Isaac Kraminick, “America was the embodiment and natural home of the Enlightenment, according to Europe’s advanced thinkers, [and] the person who best personified the Enlightenment ideal was Benjamin Franklin” (xix). By analyzing the role of religion as it progressed from the beginning of the Enlightenment period to post-Enlightenment America, it becomes clear that the immense amount of intellectual advancement and increase in human understanding that occurred during the Enlightenment allowed for much societal progression within America. As Tocqueville put it, Americans instinctively doubted tradition and subjected the truth of all opinions to individual reason and judgment” (xix). By doing this, no one established religion or set of ideas was regarded as the ultimate truth, as Americans were now learning to challenge preconceived notions. Tocqueville noticed this upon his visit to America, in which he wrote on the principles of morality and shared common beliefs (regarding the separation of church and state) amongst a citizenry of diverse religions that held together an infant nation. Today, we live in an extremely prosperous nation that adheres to the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This could not have happened were it not for the great minds that existed during and after the Enlightenment.

Works Cited

Braun, Jonathan. "It's Just Sex." Web log post. Eng274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment, 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.

Fasick, Hannah. "Private Franklin." Web log post. Eng274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment, 18 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.

Franklin, Benjamin. "As to Jesus of Nazareth." Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Ezra Stiles (1790): 1178-180. Print.

H, Rachael. "A Moral Code." Web log post. Eng274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment, 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.

Kramnick, Isaac. Introduction. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York: Penguin, 1995. Ix-Xxiii. Print.

Locke, John. "A Letter Concerning Toleration." The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York: Penguin, 1995. 81-90. Print.

Tocqueville, Alexis De, Henry Reeve, Francis Bowen, and Philips Bradley. Democracy in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991. Print.

Wisiackas, Jess. "Franklin-Dishing Out What He Can't Take in Return." Web log post. Eng274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment, 7 Sept. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.

Wisiackas, Jess. "Religion in the Lives of Newton and Bacon." Web log post. Eng274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment, 29 Aug. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.

Size as a Manifestation of Moral Rightness, Societal Indoctrination in Gulliver's Travels

In Gulliver's adventures to Lilliput and Brobdingnag he encounters wholly different sized people, but manages to become prisoner to both. The Lilliputians are diminutive, but manage to use cooperation and tools to tie him down and later chain him up; the Brobdingnagians only need their monstrous size to detain the now tiny Gulliver. Each race finds some utility in Gulliver's "unique" size, and it becomes interesting to see how each race treats Gulliver, given the power struggle inherent in their size differences. The relationship between Gulliver and each race, cast in comparison to his society back home, reveal the relative morality of each race - which we can ultimately see as satire and social commentary on the state of England at the time Swift wrote the novel.

As a captive of the Lilliputians, Gulliver must be careful to earn their trust in order to gain some freedoms in their society. However once he does so, they use him to attack the two factions that threaten their lifestyle. What's more is that Gulliver is forced to sign articles binding him to their servitude. These are laid out in formal language, ensuring a satirical read as each articles reinforces the difference in size between the Lilliputians and Gulliver and if he wanted to, he could easily ignore or refuse any. The relationship established between the Lilliputians and our traveling protagonist is first established as a physical difference, then highlighted as a societal one. Gulliver agrees to help the Lilliputians attack the harbor of Blefuscu in a nonviolent way; however he refuses to crush their society and reduce their people to servitude. It seems that the minuscule, rope-jumping, egg-cracking people of Lilliput are, despite the sometimes hilarious caricature of this size, are a viscously amoral race.

When Gulliver then travels to Brobdingnag and encounters a race of giants, a wholly different tone of morality takes hold of the novel. Once again, this relationship is born from a difference in size. Physically, Gulliver is to the Brobdingnagians as the Lilliputians were to Gulliver - a clever reflection of part 1 on the behalf of Swift. However, the ethical relationship between them is not exactly the inverse. Gulliver's toy-like dimensions make him a curiosity to the people of Brobdingnag, he becomes a sort of side-show attraction (akin to when he brought back miniature farm animals back to England between these two voyages). When Gulliver enters in discussion with the Emperor of Brobdingnag he offers up the modern invention of gunpowder to please him. This outrages the emperor and he questions why the invention would need a place in society. This confuses Gulliver, as he has been accustomed to its "utility" his whole life. Swift casts the Brobdinnagians as a simple people, but decidedly more ethical then the Lilliputians - at least not nearly as barbaric.

What really stands out to me is the idea of indoctrination set forth by Swift in these adventures. It seems that no matter how much time Gulliver spends with a race of foreign people, they can never meet eye-to-eye (physically, politically, or otherwise). Swift gives numerous examples of how this indoctrination almost literally blinds the people to think and act a certain way, and ignore all other possible alternatives. Reading this book is very much an exercise in opening ones eyes to more possibilities and scrutinizing the traditions of society.

Moral Sense and Tolerance

In reading John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration", I couldn't help but remember Francis Hutcheson's "Concerning the Moral Sense". The reason for this is that Locke, in his arguing for religious tolerance, comes to a point in which he must address religious practices that can be inhumane. In his passage, Locke brings up the point that "You will say, by this rule, if some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants...is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly?" (86). Locke's answer to this is, of course no, because those things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life or in worshiping God. For me, this is very similar to Hutcheson's later writings on moral sense, in which Hutcheson argues that every human being has a natural knowledge of what is right and wrong. When looked at in that light, it makes perfect sense for Locke to state in a passage advocating religious freedom and tolerance to indicate a situation in which such tolerance would not be necessary, but in fact it would be the duty of those in power to make sure those practices were not tolerable within society. However, the only question that raises is if it should be looked at in that light.

The interesting thing about Locke's letter is that it was written at a time in which there was a fear of Catholicism taking over England. This changes the meaning of the letter radically. Instead of being a letter which purports to stop religious persecution simply on a moral basis, but instead on a political basis. Locke's writings become one in which he tries to separate religion from the state so that power is not owned by Catholics. That is not to say Locke is not correct in his view. In no way should one religious view ever have complete control over a state. However, I am less impressed with his writing if the goals were merely political, rather than trying to inspire religious freedom for all.

Johnson's Morality and Robinson Crusoe

In Johnson’s Rambler No. 4, he argues that books and works of fiction which glorify people with bad morals are teaching people that they should imitate the glorified bad morals. Instead of showing people being rewarded for bad behavior, Johnson thinks that authors of fiction should show bad people being punished and good people being rewarded in order to encourage people to act in a morally good way. We used Fantomina, with its greatly immoral characters who receive very little punishment for their actions, as the sort of book that Johnson was condemning in. On the other hand, I thought that Robinson Crusoe would be a good example of a book that teaches morality in the way that Johnson thought fiction should. In fact, the preface of the book states: “The Story is told with Modesty, with Seriousness, and with a religious Application of Events to the Uses to which wise Men always apply them to the Instruction of others by this Example, and to justify and honour the Wisdom of Providence in all the Variety of our Circumstances.” Clearly, Defoe is conscious of the instructive elements of his fictional work.

One major example of this is the consequences of Crusoe’s decision to go to sea against his father’s wishes. As Brett pointed out in his post, Crusoe constantly questions his decision to leave home, and the turbulent sea changing between story and calm becomes a metaphor for the turmoil going through his head as he sometimes regrets his decision and sometimes embraces it. The story shows Crusoe doing something wrong – being disobedient to his parent – and also the consequences for this wrongful action – mental turmoil, and on a metaphoric level the turbulent sea is also a consequence of his disobedience. Another example of the moral instructiveness is Crusoe’s religious feelings, which help him get through the hardships he goes through. Also, Crusoe’s perseverance in the story allows him to survive. Both of these examples show Crusoe being rewarded for his good behavior.

According to Johnson, this is exactly what fiction should be doing. People who imitate the actions of characters in fictional works they read would not want to imitate Crusoe’s disobedience because of the bad consequences the story shows. They would also want to imitate Crusoe’s religious feelings and his perseverance, because these positive traits yield positive consequences. Whether or not Johnson’s ideas about morality and fiction are relevant, Robinson Crusoe conforms to Johnson’s ideas of what fiction should be.

Grand Theft Chastity

In The Rambler, No. 4, Johnson writes that the novels of his time have the potential to corrupt young people because they reflect real life and can be read as highly instructional. He warns: “To this fatal error all those will contribute who confound the colors of right and wrong, and, instead of helping to settle their boundaries, mix them with so much art, that no common mind is able to disunite them.” Essentially, he see the novel the way people view music, movies and video games today: Powerful tools that must be monitored, lest they teach the young to venerate immorality.

The story of Fantomina by Eliza Haywood is a perfect example of what Swift fears will infest the minds of young people. The lady in the story has no regard for her own integrity or chastity. She doesn’t just lie; she lies in order to get a man to take advantage of her as many times as possible before he looses interest. In the end, neither the lascivious girl nor the womanizing man who has readily fallen for her deceptions are punished at all. The story never denounces the actions of either character and there is no discernible moral at the end. In fact, the only apparent judgment the narrative makes is to describe the “intrigue” as “full of variety.”

Personally, I can’t believe that Haywood’s story was even published at this time and I can see why Swift would be worried about its moral value. I feel like this type of story is equivalent to something like Grand Theft Auto (which I still worry about my younger brother playing) or the movie Scarface—where violence and stealing is glorified. It is definitely kind of scary to think that people use video games to kill animated cops and hookers for fun and that everyone loves to quote Al Pacino’s lines. However, I know that reading Fantomina did not make me want to dress up in different disguises and meet gentlemen, regardless of how clever and ingenious the female protagonist. I also know that no matter how many police cars my brother shoots at in Grand Theft Auto, he will still pull over if caught speeding in real life (hopefully).

(Grand Theft Auto)

Therefore, while Swift is perhaps correct that novels have more sway over our opinions than fairy tales, because “the power of example is so great,” yet I don’t think that he is seeing the bigger picture. The people reading these novels, just like people today, see both good and bad everywhere they look. The mixture of good and evil is what makes the novels believable and verisimilar. If novels (and videogames/TV/movies) praised only the moral and condemned only the wicked, they would be of no more use to us than fairy tales.

Appropriate Action

Everyday we are told to put limits on ourselves. At a young age our parents tell us to limit our intake of sweets. We are advised against staying on Facebook for so long, or letting Twitter dominate our life. It sometimes seems like we are being told to deny ourselves what we want, and that in that denial, we are learning to control ourselves and therefore becoming better people. However, that is not always the case, a point touched on by Benjamin Franklin.
In his "Self-Denial Not the Essence of Virtue" Franklin breaks down the argument that self-denial is indeed the essence of virtue. He offers situations in which self-denial, as he puts it, would actually bring us closer to vice until we have "no Virtue at all". He corrects the statement to say that self-denial is instead the virtue of merit (or praise), but then immediately breaks that argument down, stating that if one does good simply out of a natural benevolence, then self-denial is not worthy of merit, but rather, as he puts at the end, "he who does a foolish, wicked or indecent Thing, meerly because 'tis contrary to his Inclination...is lunatick". What Franklin argues is that any good action is worthy of equal merit regardless of whether it was done in spite of one's natural inclination or because of it.
I would agree with Franklin that any good act is worthy of praise, but what struck me about Franklin's argument is that it draws comparison to Hutcheson's work as well. That is, it implies that we have the moral sense Hutcheson speaks of. In order know whether or not to act in accordance to or against our "natural inclination" would mean knowing right from wrong. If we know our natural inclination is wrong, we should act against it; if we know it is right, we should act in accordance to it. Regardless of this, I think Franklin makes a convincing argument in saying self-denial is not the essence of virtue, and is not even always the essence of merit.

Adam Smith, Social Scientist

Adam Smith contends, in his The Impartial Spectator, that the only way to examine his own conduct in society is to remove himself entirely and "divide myself, as it were, into two persons, that I, the examiner and judge, represent a different character from that other I, the person whose conduct is examined into and judged of" (281). He claims that the only method to understand our appearance and actions is through the perceptions of others and that a certain anxiety arises in want of knowing. Furthermore that reason, "the inhabitant of the breast, the man within," (286) is the ultimate governance of actions but that this governance can advance only through interaction with others. "The conversation of a friend brings us to a better, that of a stranger to a still better temper" (287). Crafting this belief and formally explicating it seem to be bold and noble deeds Adam Smith accomplishes for his society. He speaks the unspoken rules of society and writes the unwritten law -- material that seems accessible if not somewhat obvious to a modern reader. Do you have to agree with everything he says? No; but you should, at the least, appreciate the unabashed honesty with which Smith presents his claims.

For example, on the topic of our personal beauty and deformity, specifically its self-perception, Smith says: A man who is tolerably handsome will allow you to laugh at any little irregularity in his person; but all such jokes are commonly unsupportable to one who is really deformed (282). At the risk of sounding crude, Smith provides a tangible everyday example to his theories. This allows and encourages application of his social theories. Additionally, it is good to hear an intellectual perspective on the social conventions of the time period. Often my perception of the culture of the time period is skewed because my perspective is limited to the scope of scholarly writings; however, this piece provides wonderful insight (especially in the examples and anecdotes) from an intellectual position. Smith has created inlet to the metaphysical exploration of social relationships.

In this essay, popular economic theorist Adam Smith takes great care to measure the implications of social interaction and perception in his The Impartial Spectator, as he would trade in a treatise on free market economy. He approaches the wholly different subject with the same scrutiny and explores the depths of these social phenomena. At the risk of sounding grandiose, I think that this is one of the most interesting and wonderful effects of the enlightenment. That intellectuals like Smith and Franklin desire so much to understand themselves and their place in the world, they create not only scholarly texts still held in regard today, but also inject an academic insight into the world they inhabited.

Vices and Virtues

If you were to ask anyone if, given the opportunity, they would erase all the vices of the world, the answer would probably tend to be yes. In fact, that person might look at you like you were crazy for even having to ask that question. However, would ridding the world of all vice ve beneficial to society? Would getting rid of every flaw and evil in the world fix everything? Well, according to Bernard Mandeville the answer is an emphatic no.
Mandeville, in his "The Fable of the Bees", sets up a society of bees who act like men. He describes the bees as being corrupt, and immoral, with lawyers who "kept of Hearings willfully,/ To finger the refreshing Fee" and physicians who "valued Fame and Wealth/ Above the drooping Patient's Health". Mandeville depicts a society in which vice rules, in which it is the worse rather than better nature of man that prevails. However, he later adds "Thus every Part was full of Vice,/ Yet the whole Mass a Paradise". According to Mandeville's fable, it is the faulty faculties of man which indeed fosters progress in society. To further illustrate this point, when the figure of Jove removes all vice from the world, society collapses. All bars close, lawyers are out of jobs--it's hardly the perfect society one would suspect.
According to Mandeville, we need vice to make society run. I would disagree. While there is some truth in what Mandeville says, he goes too far in saying vice is necessary for progress. Sure, the vice of vanity drives competition which in turn allows progress, but there are also those who help simply to help, who want progress not merely for their own gain, but for the benefit of others. To say "Bare Virtue can't make Nations live/ In Splendor" is too extreme. Do we have our flaws? Of course we do. But are we a vice driven society? Some people are, but I would like to have a little more faith in people. Mandeville posits that we are driven by our own ambitions, by our own selfish wants and needs. We are evil creatures and it is in being evil that we are able to take steps forward. I would argue that we are flawed. At times we only think of ourselves, but at times we think of anything but ourselves. It is that mix of selfishness and selflessness that makes us what we are, and what allows us to progress.

Adam Smith and Internet Comment Sections

In Adam Smith’s “The Impartial Spectator,” Smith sets up a system for judging one’s own morality in which individuals must “suppose [them]selves the spectators of [their] own behavior and endeavor to imagine what effect it would, in this light produce upon [them].” In other words, to determine whether your actions are acceptable, imagine someone else is watching you. Smith believed that this concern for the judgments of other people is what gives all of us incentive to be moral in the first place, asking, “What so great misery as to be hated and to know that we deserve to be hated?”

The system of moral reasoning that Smith imagines seems to make anonymity the enemy of moral behavior. If we can be truly anonymous, then we could escape the kind of peer judgment that Smith describes, and thus, be free of the need to behave morally.

This got me thinking about one of my favorite, yet most frustrating, pasttimes: reading Internet comments sections. If you want to quickly lose faith in the decency of humanity, find an article about a controversial issue in society and scroll down to the comments sections. Racism, hatred, and libel abound on these message boards in a way that no other medium can touch. This phenomenon led author Mike Godwin to come up with “Godwin’s Law,” which asserted that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability that a comparison would be made to Hitler or Nazis approaches 100%.

These message boards support Adam Smith’s view of morality. While there were few media in Adam Smith’s day that allowed people to be 100% anonymous, the Internet has done just that, and therefore, no one seems to have an incentive to speak with any sense of moral responsibility. A Facebook official recently came under fire for saying that many of the Internet’s problems would be solved once it was no longer anonymous. I tend to agree.

Naiveties of the Enlightenment

As we discussed in class, at the core of Enlightenment thinking lies the aggressive, unyielding pursuit of advancement. To accept the status quo is to succumb to the societal dogmas that are imposed upon an individual, effectively limiting any potential for future intellectual growth. With freedom, “unassisted human reason, not faith or tradition, was the principal guide to human conduct” (Kramnick xi). Being the cynic that I am, I have come to appreciate the concept of doubting institutions and allowing individuals to formulate their own moral code that Enlightenment thinkers pioneered. However, that same cynicism leads me to question how such brilliant minds could have genuinely had such a naive view of human nature.

How many examples are necessary to show that individuals left to their own will are going to eventually act immorally? Everyone has read The Lord of the Flies. Imagine if you were stranded on an island with a random group of your peers. While there may be a handful of selfless and morally sound characters in the group, without authority anarchy bred of self interest will naturally occur sooner or later. Yet Francis Hutcheson’s view that “human beings have an inner sense – an unerring feeling – of what is proper and true” (Kelleter 81) is considered ‘enlightened’. Perhaps an innate sense of right and wrong exists, but there is no indication that this will generate ethical behavior. Adam Smith’s critique that one will act morally as an “impartial spectator” and examine the causal effects of an action strikes me as equally idealistic. Still, “the Enlightenment valorized the individual and the moral legitimacy of self-interest” (Kramnick 81). Maybe its just me, but self-interest to me seems inherently morally illegitimate. This theory of self determination as the proper method of governance may have been an advancement from the aristocratically imposed subjugation of the masses that preceded the Enlightenment, but many of the discussed ‘advancements’ present clear problems.

Along these lines, the criticism of the Enlightenment that “freedom from external authorities enables the enlightened individual “to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do”” (Kramnick 87) struck me as acutely accurate. This concept succinctly encapsulates my skepticism surrounding the Enlightenment’s questionable belief in the goodness of man. There must be a limit on freedom- some kind of authority to control man’s natural desire to not only advance himself, but advance himself above others as Hobbes described in his state of nature.