Herbert Spencer (1) (1820–1903)

One of the great flawed masterpieces of ethical philosophy. A fascinating look at an interesting double (perhaps triple) dialectical theory. This analysis is actually a synthesis of a variety of ideas, placed under the rubric of a form of utilitarianism (actually, a praxeology) and a robust evolutionary perspective. It is mosconceived in an important way, though: it should have been the second part of the Principles of Ethics, and entitled The Inductions of Ethics — and the book that he wrote as The Inductions of Ethics should have been conceived of and entitled as The Data ... and placed first. An industrious reader would read through the the full Principles of Ethics with this in mind, and adjust the author's metaethcs accordingly.

Still, it is my favorite work of 19th century moral philosophy, ahead of even Sidgwick's Method of Ethics and the works of Friedrich Nietzsche.… (mer)

Spencer was himself a little disappointed that evolutionary theory did not help him all that much in writing this, the final two sections of his "Principles of Ethics."

"Beyond certain general sanctions incdirectly reffered to in the verification, there are only here and there, and more especially in the closing chapters, conclusions evolutionary in origin that are additional to, or different from, those which are current."

"Some such result might have been foreseen. Right regulation of the actions of so complex a being as Man, living under conditions so complex as those presented by a society, evidently forms a subject-matter unlikely to admit of definite conclusions throughout its entire range."

This is so sensible, I sometimes wonder why there are not more Spencer readers.

But then I look at the prose. This is not simple writing. Nor is it hard to follow. It is careful, and sober. It demands intelligence. And that, I think, is where most readers today object. They don't want to use their intelligence in this way, simply to follow the words of his long, stately sentences.

As for me, I think is it near-perfect. I try not to emulate it, in my own writing. But I often do follow his cadences, his rhythms.

As for the argument? There's much to pick at, I suppose, but I find his treatment of justice more problematic. Early in this book he makes the distinction between justice and beneficence, and he argues for a strict apartheid between them. I agree. The argument is important. Indeed, it is probably worth a whole book even to itself.

That being said, Spencer here proves himself to be an astute and sober fellow with something to offer those who think they "know it all" when it comes to ethics. None of us do. And none of us should assume that because we are smart fellows, our superior intelligence will change the world.

Spencer puts that to rest early on, too!… (mer)