Theory of Moral Sentiments
I’ve been reading a biography Adam Smith, who I had previously thought of as an economist, but have since learned that he is a moral philosopher, who studied under Hutcheson and was a good friend of David Hume.
From this work, I’ve realized how important the insights of the enlightenment thinkers were to later theories by biologists such as Charles Darwin.
In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith tried to explore human behavior in a way fairly unique to the time. Recognizing morality as unique to humans, previous thinkers chalked it up to a gift from a diety. Smith wasn’t so sure, or at least looked to people’s behavior in public and private to understand how a sense of morality develops.
One thing that Smith observed is societal pressures creating a standard or norm for public behavior, which could deviate in private. Smith recognized societal standards as a powerful force to shape emotions and therefore behavior. People strive to have a similar emotional level as the people around you, which creates an acceptable medium for public emotional displays, and therefore the behaviors in response to outward emotion.
What I found interesting is that Smith recognized the importance of human interactions, where most others tended to focus on the personal, in dealing with theories of morality (be it the ridiculous supernatural or the slightly more reasonable, all actions are essentially selfish). This idea that society and personal interactions are powerful in shaping human psychology lines up nicely with my ideas about human evolution.
While Smith did not have an inclination of evolution and was not terrible concerned with how morality could have come about, I think his ideas were essential for the eventual development of Darwinism.
The enlightenment thinkers developed new ideas about psychology, behavior, and human interactions and all scales that did not rely on some supernatural force. They did for biology and social sciences what Galileo and Newton did for cosmology and physics: they started the notion that human behavior can be studied in a systematic way by studying aspects of humans and human society. This change in thinking was essential, I think for the study of biological organisms as adaptable.
global RSS feed.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I’m reposting this here just in case you don’t happen to pop back over to my site. :)
I am impressed. I know that lots of people have a hard time ‘getting’ philsophy at first unless it’s guided in some way.
Do not consider yourself unfortunate. The best philosophers tend to be the ones who never took a real philosophy course, because they are the ones most likely to strike out on their own and come up with new directions instead of sticking to the old tired questions.
Once you’re done with the 18th century, may I recommend studying Karl Popper? He’s considered one of the founders of the modern philosophy of science as it is taught today. Also, on the other side, is Ludwig Wittgenstein, who’s TLP is just mind-boggling.
Perhaps we should have some discussions and you can make me pick up Hume again!