For a recent summaiy of European debates on this question, see Fonnesu (2006).
‘Turnbull (2005), vol. 1, p. 397.
Norton (1975); Stewart (1987); Broadic (2005).
5
The “Science of Man” 91
p. 17.
15 Ibid.,
94 Thomas Ahnert
advocated by Bayle)
6 The mysteries of faith made known to humanity
in divine revelation were not contrary to natural reason, but additions
to it, “built upon the same Foundation.”
17 While human reason was
not sufficient to arrive at these truths of faith unaided, once they were
revealed they complemented natural reason; they did not contradict it.
Clarke believed that the existence of imperfection in creation gave
no grounds for doubting God’s providence and goodness. All created
beings were of necessity inferior to their Creator and did not share any
of God’s qualities to the same degree, if at all. Therefore they were not
absolutely good, either, and some degree of imperfection was inevita
ble, but they were capable of goodness relative to their particular
station in the hierarchy of all created beings, which reached from
inanimate matter at the bottom, to angels at its top. Humans were in
an intermediate position in that hierarchy. They were more likely than
angels to succumb to bodily passions and to sin, but they were also
able to act according to rational moral consideration, unlike brutes.
The presence of sin was the result of human choice, not God’s will.
Admittedly, it would have been better for the individual humans who
sinned if they had been created unable to do so, but that would have
also made them unable to acquire the merit of choosing virtuous over
immoral actions. In sum, it was better for all humans to be able to sin,
in order for some of them to be able to choose freely to be moral.
Imperfection gave humans the opportunity to progress morally and to
acquire merit, and the goodness this entailed outweighed the advan
tages of “determiniig Men to Goodness”, which would require making
“Men mere Machines not Men.”
18
Clarke’s view of divine providence differed significantly from the
more famous contemporary response to Bayle by the German phi
losopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
19 Leibniz argued that the pres
ence of evil was an unfortunate, inevitable consequence of creation,
but not the result of free human choice in Clarke’s sense. Leibniz
argued that in the created world there were limitations on the co
existence of different states of affairs, and although God desired moral
16 Ibid., p. 84.
17 Ibid., p. 91.
18 Ibid.,
p. 235.
19 Leibniz (1951). For
a lucid summary of Leibniz’ argument, see Riley (1996,
pp. 38—44).
The “Science of Man” 95
pp. 62—65.
29 Turnbull’s remarks in Heineccius (1740), book 1,
p. 197.
30 Ibid.
98 Thomas Ahnert
analysis of Harrington.
Fukuda (1997, p. 86).
100 Thomas Ah,iert
Conclusion
Turnbull believed that a science of man was necessary before the
improvement of moral philosophy would be possible. The main defect
of ancient philosophy had been its attempt to engage in moral phi
losophy before natural philosophy had reached a greater level of
49 It was only following the advances in natural philoso
sophistication.
phy in the seventeenth century, which were associated with figures
such as Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton, that moral
philosophy could progress substantially beyond the doctrines of the
various ancient schools. Turnbull’s belief in the need to treat moral
philosophy as a subdivision of natural philosophy, rather than as a
distinct discipline probably explains his dissatisfaction with the se
quence in which the different parts of philosophy were taught in the
standard undergraduate curriculum at Scottish universities. This began
with moral philosophy in the first year, and ended with natural phi
losophy in the fourth, an order the reverse of that which Turnbull
considered correct.
°
5
Turnbull’s science of human nature was linked to moral philosophy
by his belief in divine providence. The natural consequences of moral
and immoral actions were morally significant because they formed part
of a benevolent and just natural order willed by God. Turnbull’s focus
on pains and pleasures may seem to prefigure later, utilitarian argu
ments, but it is important to bear in mind two differences between his
theory and later utilitarianism. One is that Turnbull distinguished the
pains and pleasures of moral action conceptually from considerations
of crude utility or self-interest. Vulgar self-interest, whether this was
described as Hobbesian, Mandevillian or Epicurean, could not be the
object of moral action, and whatever pleasure resulted from virtue had
to be conceptually separate from this self-interest. The other differ
ence to utilitarianism is that Turnbull did not present pain and pleas
ure as the basic criteria of moral decisions, but argued that particular
actions were painful or pleasurable because they were immoral or
virtuous in the first place. The pleasures of virtue, as well as the miser
ies of vice were proof of a theodicy, God’s benevolent and just direc
tion of creation, including human nature.
References
Ahnert, Thomas (2004a), “Pleasure, Pain, and Punishment in the Early Enlighten-
merit: German and Scottish Debates”,JahrbuchJIirRechtundEthi/e 12, 173—187.
Ahnert, Thomas (2004b), “The Soul, Natural Religion, and Moral Philosophy in the
Scottish Enlightenment”, Etghteenth-C’entuy Thought 2, pp. 233—253.
Broadie, Alexander (2005), “Introduction”, in Turnbuil (2005), vol. 1.
Carter,J. J. and H. Pittock (eds.) (1987), Aberdeen and the En/ightenment, Aberdeen.
Clarke, John (1720), An Enquiy into the Cause and Origin of Evi4 London.
Clarke, John (1721), An Enquiry into the Cause and Origin ofMoralEvi/, London.
Ferguson, Adam (1995), An Essaj on the Histoy of Civil Society, ed. F. Oz Salzberger,
—
Cambridge.
Fonnesu, Luca (2006), “The Problem of Theodicy”, in K. Haakonssen (2006),
pp. 749—778.
Fukuda, Arihiro (1997), Sovereignty and the Sword: 1-Iarrington, Hobbes, and mixed govern
ment in the English Civil War, Oxford.
Harris, James (2003), “Answering Bayle’s Question: Religious Belief in the Moral
Philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment”, Oxford Studies in Ear/y Modern Philoso
3 1, pp. 229—254.
ph
Haakonssen, Knud (ed.) (2006), The Cambridge Histoy ofEighteenth-Century Philosophj, 2
vols., Cambridge.
Heineccius, Johann Gottlieb (1740), A Methodical Sjstem of Universal Law: or, the Laws
of Nature and Nations Deduced from 6’ertain Princbles, and Applied to Proper Cases, 2
vols., London.
Hochstrasser, Tim and Peter Schröder (eds.) (2003), Ear/y Modern Natural Law
Theories. Contexts and Strategies in the Ear/y En4ghtenmen4 Dordrecht.
Hume, David (1978), A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H.
Nidditch, Oxford.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1951), Theodi ’ Essqys on the Goodness of God and the
0
Freedom of Man and the Orzgin of Evi4 edited by Austin Farrer and translated by
E. M. Huggard, London.
Norton, David Fate (1975), “George Turnbull and the Furniture of the Mind”,
Journal of the History ofIdeas 35, 701—716.
Pope, Alexander (1950), An Essaj on Man, ed. Maynard Mack, London.
Riley, Patrick (1996), Leibni’ Universal Jurisprudence. Justice as the Chariy of the Wise,
London and Cambridge, MA.
Riley, Patrick (2003), “Malebranche and Natural Law”, in T. Hochstrasser and
P. Schröder (eds.), pp. 53—87.
Stewart, M. A. (1987), “George Turnbull and Educational Reform”, in J. J. Carter
and H. Pittock (1987), pp. 95—103.
Turnbull, George (1 723a), Theses phiosophicae de scientiae natura/is aim philosophia morali
co/!unctione, Aberdeen.
Turnbull, George (1 723b), Theses academzcae ae pee/cherrima enundi aim materialis teem
rationalis constitutione, Aberdeen.
104 Thomas Ahnert
Turnbull, George (1731), A Philosophical Enqzei’ Concerning the (‘onnexion Between the
Doctrines and Miracles ofJesus Chds4 London.
Turnbull, George (1732), Christianity ,ieither False nor Useless, tho’ not as Old as the
Creation, London.
Turnbull, George (2003), Observations upon Liberal Education in All its Branches, ed.
Terence 0. Moore Indiana ohs.
Turnbull, George (2005), Principles ofMoral and Christian Philosophy, 2 vols., ed. Alex
ander Broadie, Indianapolis.
Wood, Paul (2004), “George Turnbull”, in The Oxford Dictionary ofNational Biography,
Oxford.