PPESexton2026

       Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments , describes a metaphorical building when comparing the virtues of justice and beneficence. Smith claims that justice “is the main pillar that holds up the entire edifice” while beneficence “is the ornament which embellishes, not the foundation” (p. 87). While beneficence is “less essential to the existence of society than justice,” it greatly enhances the quality of existing societies (p. 86). To extend the building metaphor, without beneficence, the building may stand, but the windows would be shattered, leaving the residents inside cold and miserable. While beneficence is voluntary, a society devoid of it would be a joyless utility-maximizing marketplace. If beneficence, i.e. voluntary kindness breeds more happiness, then leaders of virtuous societies should seek to incentivize it among their citizens.      Beneficence is driven by Smith’s “impartial spectator,” an internal force that can “humble t...

In Anderson’s novel, much of the debate surrounding what compels a strong work ethic is predicated on the nature of the inputs and outputs that are present in a labor-demanding society. Conservatives, who harbor “an extremely harsh set of attitudes towards the working poor”, credit a lack of work-ethic to detriments like vice and a lack of discipline (Anderson 130). Drawing from their disdain and skepticism of plight towards the working class, conservatives propose solutions of enforced poverty to induce in the working class a self-motivation to both produce more effectively and to “ submit to the dictatorial authority of their social superiors” (Anderson 136). Much to the contrary, progressives condemn such a perspective and place more emphasis on the autonomy and liberty accorded to the working class. (Anderson 133, 142) Anderson offers up Smith as a member of this camp, citing his promotions of a working class that, given liberation and discretion, “shall enjoy the fruits of it’s ow...

Elizabeth Anderson argues that the libertarian reading of Locke is deeply mistaken about Locke’s moral foundation. While libertarians claim that Locke derives everyone’s equal natural rights from negative liberties, Anderson claims that Locke derives such rights from a fundamental universal duty to protect and support other human beings(23). However, she is wrong about this. Locke’s primary moral foundation is not that humans have a duty to protect others, but rather that they have the duty not to harm others’ life, liberty, and property. In other words, in the state of nature, it is not that we aim to support others' survival, but rather not to wrong others. This mistake Anderson makes follows into later parts of the paper when she says that Waldron’s assumption that Locke must have an argument to rationalize the impoverished landless workers can’t be right. She claims this because, in her view, such a state violates Locke’s fundamental law of nature: that people secure the flouri...

In Hijacked , Elizabeth Anderson uses the example of the yeoman farmer to highlight the conditional nature of Smith’s admiration for independent labor over prosperity, raising broader questions about Smith’s justice and moral conscience under practical social conditions (Anderson, 139).  Yeoman farmers prospered not because of a superior work ethic, but because sixteenth-century legal reforms allowed them to negotiate long-term, fixed leases. These institutional arrangements empowered yeomen to benefit from additional investment and to remain independent from landlords’ arbitrary authority. Their productivity followed from independence, not the other way around.  When these legal protections were dismantled through enclosure and consolidation, yeomen were displaced and reduced once again to precarious dependence. As Anderson emphasizes, this transformation “produced paupers, not proletarians”: workers were not empowered agents but insecure laborers subject to domination (Ander...

Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments explains moral judgement through the impartial spectator, an imagined observer who evaluates actions without personal interest or social bias. People must “humble the arrogance of his self-love, and bring it down to something which other men can go along with.” (83) In other words, moral judgement is about whether one’s reasons can be justified from a standpoint others recognize as fair. Elizabeth Anderson uses this framework to critique the conservative work ethic, which embodies “an extremely harsh set of attitudes toward the working poor”, including “contempt for their suffering” and “blindness to their virtues and merits” (130). Anderson emphasizes that people admire the rich while “despising or at least [ing]” the poor. From the impartial spectator’s perspective, however, we should extend “the same compassion for equal suffering, the same resentment for equivalent victimization, the same admiration for equal merits” to rich and poor alike (...

Anderson portrays Locke and Smith to be remarkably similar in thesis, yet they diverge signficantly in method. It appears that both writers are attempting to maximize public good and to that end, societal efficiency. However, contrary to modern thought, Locke takes a more ignorant view of the poor in society. Locke is not as interested with the wealthy versus the poor, but rather distinguishes between the “industrious and the idle” (52). Locke’s primary suspicion is whether the “able-bodied poor … are truly involuntarily unemployed, or are they just faking it to get relief” (59). More explicitly, Locke attributes poverty due to “vice and idleness,” largely disregarding other explanations. Smith, on the other hand, points out Locke’s misstep; he reasons that the systemic biases that Locke falls victim to “distort[s] … judgement of virtue and vice … lead[ing] us to favor the rich … and to heap scorn on the poor” (131-132).  This fundamental difference in thinking materializes in thei...

  Particularly fascinating to me in Anderson’s assessment of Smith is her contention that Smith can be read as a virtue ethicist, particularly with regard to work ethic. Anderson states: “the work ethic— the ‘habits of economy, industry, discretion, attention, and application of thought’— lies at the core of Smith’s account of virtue. A habit counts as a virtue if it would be approved by an impartial spectator” (Anderson, 136).  In “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” Smith also focuses on Justice as a virtue— but while Justice is a negative virtue, work ethic is a positive one. That is to say, in the words of Smith, “mere justice is… but a negative virtue… and only hinders us from hurting our neighbor” (Smith, 81). In contrast, work ethic constitutes positive actions which benefit not only ourselves, but our neighbors.  I wonder if, despite accounts coming from different texts, the relationship between Justice and Work Ethic, according to Smith, lies in the difference b...

The criticism Anderson makes on the “sufficiency proviso” articulated by Locke is rooted in the fundamental moral principles that require the state itself to rectify inequalities which arise from a private enclosure of natural resources. She classifies Locke as a proponent of the progressive work ethic which searches for a social order wherein honest industry is rewarded for both the rich and poor. This material sufficiency stands as a prerequisite for democratic equality wherein citizens can exist without the threat of oppression.  Anderson briefly engages with Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, as an advocate of “progressive work ethic” revealing a psychological barrier (154). While she treats this modern epistemology of suspicion towards the poor as a neoliberal hijacking of history, Smith identifies the human tendency to worship wealth as a universal cause of the corruption of our own moral sentiments—an inherent principle of human nature that is crucial to maintaining the dis...

Elizabeth Anderson argues that Locke harshly treats both the idle poor and the idle rich: "It explains Locke's attacks on aristocratic and corrupt... which promote the material interests of the idle rich" (25), and that he "mostly deployed the work ethic in favour of workers" (25). This reading greatly supports her progressive interpretation of Locke's theory of work. Does the textual evidence support this reading of equal condemnation? Locke does seem to criticize the idle rich, however his criticism of the idle poor and expectations for poor laws are extremely draconian compared to the "redistributive policies" (25) he proposes for the idle rich. On the case of poor children, which Anderson points out later, Locke suggests that poor kids should be sent to factories at the age of three and be fed "water gruel," allowing the mothers to also continue working (60). The asymmetry is concerning: while Locke's solution to idle wealth invol...

Lockes reasoning for both rights and spoilage use both consequentialism and non-consequentialism in their reasoning leading me to question the strength of how natural the rights he poses really are. Locke poses rights that exist pre-politically, and seem to come about through reason within a state of nature, yet much of the evidence present in the text for these rights draws on empirical evidence with conequentialst justifications. If rights are truly self evident then why must Locke point to ideas like the increased productivity gained from private property. Mixing labor with nature and it become property follows logically through no emprical evidence strengthening the claim to self evident rights. However his constant return to empirical evidence seems to call into question wether the rights we posses are demonstrably self evident, if he must fall back on consequentialism to convince the reader, can rights really be arrived at through pure reason in a state of nature.  Spoilage a...

There exists a clear disparity between Locke and Hobbes in their diagnosis of mankind’s state of nature and their ideation of a society following this state. Hobbes believes that mankind is driven to constant quarrel by competition, diffidence (insecurity), and glory. The State of War, in which there exists unending violence, leads to the nonexistence of rights, justice, and property. Every man is temporarily entitled to that which he can safely defend from the territorial advances of others, but the impermanence of his entitlement makes ownership impossible. With the existence of an absolute sovereign, however, rights and ownership are both feasible endeavors.  Locke, who harbors a less pessimistic view, proffers a State of Nature in which every man is guaranteed rights and property preceding the existence of the state. Humans are accorded, by nature of their absolute, god-given equality, the right to the enforcement of natural law and the ability to judge and punish transgressors...

Locke and Hobbes’ differing views on slavery and resistance are rooted in the idea of whether anyone is owed anything by nature.  Hobbes argues that no one deserves anything by nature, but rather from contracts, laws, and promises. Nature grants merely a right of self-preservation, not a right to freedom or equality. Justice is intertwined with order, based entirely on keeping covenants. Because the sovereign is not held to a covenant with the people, resistance is rarely justified. Slavery, understood as a consequence of war, was therefore not inherently unjust within Hobbes’s framework. Although enslaved persons retained the right to resist or even kill their masters, this right does not constitute a political or moral claim against authority but rather the right to self-preservation. Slavery is compatible with justice for Hobbes, as justice is created by political order, independent from equality, human rights, or moral desert.  Locke takes a contrasting approach, grounding...

Hobbes believes the state of nature is a perpetual state of war and insecurity, motivated by every man’s desire for self-preservation and equal ability to kill another. To escape this state of nature, Hobbes states that the people should establish an absolute sovereign. Locke, on the other hand, defines the state of nature as a state of “equality” and “perfect freedom.” The “state of equality” Locke is referring to is a state where all men are equal amongst each other in their power and jurisdiction. No man has the ability to subordinate or subject another and all men have a duty to maximize justice. The “state of freedom” refers to the fact that all men can order their actions as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. This means that all men have the executive power of the law of nature. However, he admits that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases because of their own self-love and ill-nature. Therefore, Locke suggested a civil government as the p...

While Locke’s state of nature exists before government, people possess the basic components of political authority. Individuals have legislative power through the law of nature, reason, which is universally recognized and morally binds. Moreover, executive authority exists to enforce and punish violations of natural law to seek restitution, but in doing so, individuals must determine whether a violation occurred and levy appropriate punishment, which leads to inconsistency in the application of judicial power. The absence of a neutral institution drives people to leave the state of nature not because it is chaotic as Hobbes suggests, but because impartial judgement and reliable enforcement are two unreasonable endeavors.  This is particularly illustrative in the discussion of property. Since individuals can acquire ownership by mixing their labor with the commons, property exists prior to the state and in accordance with reason. Therefore, an interesting consequence arises—Locke’s ...

Hobbes defines the term ‘liberty’ as the absence of external impediments that have the ability to redact from man’s power. Within his conception of the natural condition, every man has the right to ‘every thing’ – and the liberty to use his power for self-preservation (by the right of nature), which leads to the state of war. He purports that life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".  This unrestricted liberty creates the fear of imminent death and violence where there exists no “mine and thine”, and therefore, an inability to secure or even define property. Hobbes proposes the transfer of natural liberty to a sovereign or Commonwealth, who then has the ability to define and protect property as a means of self-preservation and the prevention of the state of war.  Locke believes that natural liberty exists only in conjunction with the law of nature as a rule. In contrast to Hobbes, he argues that property itself is a natural right that exists prior to the state: he ...

A conception of the state of war is a critical component of both Hobbes and Locke's works. While both contend that a state of war necessitates "enmity and destruction," they differ in the relationship between states of war in nature.  Both authors begin with a designation of equality to the state of nature, but they do so in different ways.  Hobbes states that man's equality derives from equality in capacity for destruction of each other, and goes on to contend that man's propensity to act self-interestedly causes such equality to manifest into a state of total war, where man's life is "nasty, brutish, and short." He then goes on to authorize the absolute power of the state to protect individuals from the brutality of such an existence. Locke, alternatively, establishes equality in the state of nature by relying on a lack of the power and jurisdiction in a state of nature which would introduce the capacity for inequality. That said, a state of total ...

  While Hobbes and Locke disagree on many fronts, they collectively agree with the baseline understanding that all humans are inherently equal. Hobbes specifies that he refers to a human’s mental and physical ability to preserve themselves when referring to equality. Locke seems to conclude that humans are equal and independent because they exist in states of perfect freedom naturally and therefore they possess equal amounts of freedom. Interestingly, this premise of equality seems to imply different ideas for each philosopher. Hobbes suggests that since every human being has the same intrinsic capability to destroy one another, their equality is the very propagator of war. He explains that if any two men desire the same thing, and inevitably only one of them can get it, they will become enemies and seek to subdue the other in order to preserve themselves. Hobbes presents the prisoner’s dilemma here and explains that even if these humans had the rationality to consider each other i...

Locke believes that through natural law, "nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life cannot give another power over it." (22). Thus, no one person's jurisdiction can extend beyond themselves onto others in nature. Equality here then constrains political power before the existence of any state's authority. By contrast, Hobbes posits that all humans are equal as they are all equally capable of inflicting violence, which leads to mutual and collective fear. For Hobbes, in the state of nature without government, nothing is inherently unjust, as justice only arises from a common authority's enforcement of it. This divergence is further evident in their views on the law of nature. For Locke, the law of nature and morality is discoverable through natural reasoning. It commands individuals to refrain from harming others in their life, liberty, or possessions. More importantly, Locke holds that individuals in the state of natu...

 Both Hobbes and Locke describe a state of nature grounded in equality and natural law. Yet, they reach sharply different conclusions about property. Hobbes denies any possibility of owning property in the state of nature. Locke, by contrast, argues that individuals may aquire private property prior to any government by mixing their labor with common resources. By allowing pre-political appropriation, Locke commits himself to moral constraints on ownership.  Locke introduces these limits through two provisos. The Spoiling proviso requires that an individual only claim ownership over land/natural resources to what one can use before it spoils, critizicing waste as a violation of natural law: "Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy" (21). To me, this limit is relatively clear and intuitive.  More demanding, however, is Locke's second proviso, claiming that appropriation is only legitimate if "enough, and as good" is left in common for others. At first...

                                                                         SYLLABUS                         Courses: PPE Philosophy Seminar and Philosophy Tutorial Seminar Time: Thursday (and sometimes on Tuesday) 1:15-4:00 Seminar Place: Kravis 100 (when not online or outside) Tutorial Time: Designated Tuesdays, by appointment Professor: Paul Hurley Contact Info: paul.hurley@cmc.edu Office Hours: W 2:00-4:00, F 3:00-4:30 (with occasional rescheduling to accommodate faculty and committee meetings), ABA.   INTRO...