Summary
Smith examines a popular moral theory that says virtue consists entirely in benevolence - being kind and caring toward others. This view, championed by philosophers like Dr. Hutcheson, argues that only actions motivated by pure love and concern for others' welfare can be truly virtuous. Any trace of self-interest, even wanting to feel good about yourself, supposedly diminishes the moral worth of an action. Smith acknowledges the appeal of this theory - after all, benevolence does seem like the most admirable quality, and we do judge actions more harshly when we discover selfish motives behind them. But he identifies a crucial flaw: this system fails to explain why we also admire virtues like prudence, self-discipline, and taking proper care of ourselves. Smith argues that while benevolence might work as the sole motive for a perfect divine being who needs nothing, humans are different. We're imperfect creatures who must attend to our own survival and wellbeing. A moral system that makes self-care inherently non-virtuous sets an impossible standard. Smith suggests that the key isn't choosing between self-interest and benevolence, but finding the right balance. Sometimes caring for yourself is exactly what virtue requires - like maintaining your health so you can care for your family. The chapter reveals Smith's nuanced understanding that real-world morality requires multiple principles working together, not the purity of a single overriding concern.
Coming Up in Chapter 36
Having examined systems that demand too much virtue, Smith next turns to those that demand too little - exploring what happens when moral philosophy swings too far toward permissiveness and self-indulgence.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
Of those systems which make virtue consist in benevolence. The system which makes virtue consist in benevolence, though I think not so ancient as all of those which I have already given an account of, is, however, of very great antiquity. It seems to have been the doctrine of the greater part of those philosophers who, about and after the age of Augustus, called themselves Eclectics, who pretended to follow chiefly the opinions of Plato and Pythagoras, and who upon that account are commonly known by the name of the later Platonists. In the divine nature, according to these authors, benevolence or love was the sole principle of action, and directed the exertion of all the other attributes. The wisdom of the Deity was employed in finding out the means for bringing about those ends which his goodness suggested, as his infinite power was exerted to execute them. Benevolence, however, was still the supreme and governing attribute, to which the others were subservient, and from which the whole excellency, or the whole morality, if I may be allowed such an expression, of the divine operations, was ultimately derived. The whole perfection and virtue of the human mind consisted in some resemblance or participation of the divine perfections, and, consequently, in being filled with the same principle 322of benevolence and love which influenced all the actions of the deity. The actions of men which flowed from this motive were alone truly praise-worthy, or could claim any merit in the sight of the deity. It was by actions of charity and love only that we could imitate, as became us, the conduct of God, that we could express our humble and devout admiration of his infinite perfections, that by fostering in our own minds the same divine principle, we could bring our own affections to a greater resemblance with his holy attributes, and thereby become more proper objects of his love and esteem; till at last we arrived at that immediate converse and communication with the deity to which it was the great object of this philosophy to raise us. This system, as it was much esteemed by many ancient fathers of the christian church, so after the reformation it was adopted by several divines of the most eminent piety and learning, and of the most amiable manners; particularly, by Dr. Ralph Cudworth, by Dr. Henry More, and by Mr. John Smith of Cambridge. But of all the patrons of this system, ancient or modern, the late Dr. Hutcheson, was undoubtedly beyond all comparison, the most acute, the most distinct, the most philosophical, and what is of the greatest consequence of all, the soberest and most judicious. That virtue consists in benevolence is a notion supported by many appearances in human nature. It has been observed already that proper benevolence is the most graceful and agreeable of all the affections, that it is recommended to us by a double sympathy, that as its tendency is necessarily beneficent, 323it is the proper object...
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of Perfect Standards - When Impossible Ideals Become Self-Sabotage
Setting impossibly pure ideals that shame normal human needs and behaviors, leading to either paralysis or abandonment of the goal entirely.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to recognize when admirable ideals get twisted into shame-based purity tests that sabotage the very goals they claim to serve.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when you feel guilty about mixed motives in good actions - like enjoying volunteer work or wanting recognition for helping others, then ask: 'What would sustainable virtue look like here?'
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Eclectics
Ancient philosophers who borrowed ideas from different schools of thought rather than following one strict system. They tried to take the best parts from various teachers like Plato and Pythagoras to create their own blend.
Modern Usage:
We see this approach in people who combine different self-help philosophies, or professionals who use techniques from multiple training programs.
Benevolence
Acting with genuine care and kindness toward others, wanting what's best for them without expecting anything in return. Smith explores whether this should be the only basis for calling something virtuous.
Modern Usage:
We praise volunteers, charitable donors, and people who help strangers, but we also debate whether their motives matter.
Divine perfections
The ideal qualities that philosophers believed God possessed - perfect love, wisdom, and power all working together. Humans were supposed to try to copy these qualities as much as possible.
Modern Usage:
We still talk about role models and trying to embody the best qualities we admire, whether in religious figures or secular heroes.
Merit
The moral worth or credit that an action deserves based on the motives behind it. Some philosophers argued that only perfectly selfless actions could earn true merit.
Modern Usage:
We still judge people differently when we find out their 'real' reasons - like questioning whether a celebrity's charity work is genuine or just for publicity.
Self-interest
Acting in ways that benefit yourself, which these benevolence theorists saw as corrupting any moral value of an action. Even wanting to feel good about doing right was considered problematic.
Modern Usage:
We wrestle with this when we wonder if helping others 'counts' if it makes us feel good, or if saving money is selfish when others need help.
Prudence
The virtue of taking proper care of yourself and making wise decisions about your own life. Smith argues this is genuinely virtuous, not just selfishness disguised.
Modern Usage:
We recognize this in people who manage their finances responsibly, maintain their health, or set boundaries to avoid burnout.
Characters in This Chapter
Dr. Hutcheson
Philosophical opponent
Smith's former teacher who championed the benevolence-only theory of virtue. He believed that any trace of self-interest corrupted the moral worth of an action, making only pure altruism truly virtuous.
Modern Equivalent:
The idealistic mentor who sets impossible standards
The Deity
Moral exemplar
Used by benevolence theorists as the perfect example of pure virtue - a being whose every action flows from perfect love. Smith questions whether humans can or should try to copy this impossible standard.
Modern Equivalent:
The perfect boss everyone compares themselves to but can never match
The Eclectics
Ancient theorists
The later Platonist philosophers who first developed the idea that benevolence should be the sole principle of virtue. They tried to model human morality on divine perfection.
Modern Equivalent:
The self-help gurus who promise one simple principle will solve everything
Key Quotes & Analysis
"Benevolence, however, was still the supreme and governing attribute, to which the others were subservient"
Context: Smith explaining how the Eclectics viewed divine nature
This reveals the core problem Smith sees with the benevolence system - it makes one virtue the boss of all others, creating an unrealistic hierarchy. Real life requires balancing different virtues depending on the situation.
In Today's Words:
They thought being kind to others was the only thing that really mattered, and everything else should serve that goal.
"The whole perfection and virtue of the human mind consisted in some resemblance or participation of the divine perfections"
Context: Describing what the benevolence theorists expected from humans
Smith highlights how this theory sets an impossible standard by expecting humans to act like perfect divine beings. This creates a system where normal human needs and limitations become moral failures.
In Today's Words:
They thought people should try to be as perfect and selfless as God, which is pretty much impossible.
"The actions of men which flowed from this motive were alone truly praise-worthy"
Context: Explaining the benevolence theorists' strict standard for moral worth
This shows the all-or-nothing thinking that Smith critiques. By making pure benevolence the only source of true virtue, this system dismisses other important qualities like self-care and practical wisdom.
In Today's Words:
They believed only actions done from pure love for others deserved any real credit.
Thematic Threads
Social Expectations
In This Chapter
Society's demand for pure, selfless virtue creates impossible moral standards that real humans cannot meet
Development
Builds on earlier themes about how social approval shapes behavior, now showing how unrealistic expectations backfire
In Your Life:
You might recognize this when you feel guilty for having any personal needs while helping others.
Identity
In This Chapter
The struggle between seeing yourself as 'good' (purely selfless) versus accepting your complex human nature
Development
Deepens previous identity themes by exploring how moral perfectionism fragments self-concept
In Your Life:
You might see this when you question whether you're a 'good person' because you have mixed motives.
Human Relationships
In This Chapter
How impossible moral standards damage relationships by creating shame and preventing honest self-care
Development
Extends relationship themes to show how perfectionist ideals sabotage authentic connection
In Your Life:
You might notice this when you resent people you're helping because you can't admit your own needs.
Personal Growth
In This Chapter
Learning that sustainable virtue requires balance between self-care and care for others
Development
Advances growth themes by rejecting all-or-nothing thinking in favor of nuanced wisdom
In Your Life:
You might apply this when learning to set healthy boundaries without feeling selfish.
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
What's the main problem Smith identifies with saying that only completely selfless actions can be virtuous?
analysis • surface - 2
Why does Smith think this 'pure benevolence only' approach works for a perfect divine being but not for humans?
analysis • medium - 3
Where do you see people today setting impossible standards that make normal human needs feel shameful?
application • medium - 4
Think of someone you know who burned out from trying to be perfectly selfless. What would 'sustainable virtue' have looked like in their situation?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter suggest about why balance might be more virtuous than purity?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Spot Your Impossible Standards
Write down three areas where you hold yourself to impossibly high standards - places where you feel guilty for having normal human needs or wants. For each one, identify what the 'perfect' version would look like versus what a sustainable, balanced approach might be. Notice how the impossible standard might actually prevent you from doing good work in that area.
Consider:
- •Look for areas where you use words like 'always' or 'never' about your behavior
- •Notice where you feel guilty for basic self-care or personal needs
- •Consider how your impossible standards might affect others around you
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when trying to be perfectly selfless actually made you less helpful to others. What would you do differently now, knowing that sustainable virtue requires balance?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 36: When Philosophy Goes Wrong
As the story unfolds, you'll explore to spot when someone's trying to convince you that all good deeds are secretly selfish, while uncovering extreme philosophical positions usually miss the truth by going too far. These lessons connect the classic to contemporary challenges we all face.