Summary
Smith tackles a fundamental question: where do our ideas of right and wrong come from? He starts by examining Thomas Hobbes's controversial claim that morality is just whatever the government says it is. According to Hobbes, without government, life would be chaos, so we should obey authority completely and call that 'good.' Smith shows why this is dangerous thinking—it means right and wrong change based on whoever's in power. Critics of Hobbes argued that we must have some natural sense of morality that exists before any laws are made. They claimed reason—our logical thinking—is what tells us right from wrong, like it tells us true from false. Smith agrees this sounds logical but points out a crucial flaw: reason can help us organize our moral thoughts and create general rules for living, but it can't create the original feelings that make us care about morality in the first place. Think about it—when you see someone being cruel, you don't need to reason your way to feeling that it's wrong. The feeling comes first, immediate and strong. Reason helps you understand why and develop principles, but the gut reaction is what matters. Smith argues that our moral sense comes from immediate feelings, not cold logic. We feel pleasure when we see virtue and pain when we witness vice. These feelings are the foundation—reason just helps us build the house on top. This insight revolutionizes how we think about moral decision-making, suggesting that our emotional responses to right and wrong are not weaknesses to overcome but essential guides to navigate ethical choices in daily life.
Coming Up in Chapter 39
Having shown that reason alone can't explain our moral judgments, Smith turns to explore the power of sentiment and feeling as the true foundation of our ethical lives. He'll reveal how our emotions, not our logic, guide us toward justice and compassion.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
Of those systems which make reason the principle of approbation. It is well known to have been the doctrine of Mr. Hobbes, that a state of nature, is a state of war; and that antecedent to the institution of civil government, there could be no safe or peaceable society among men. To preserve society, therefore, according 351to him, was to support civil government, and to destroy civil government was the same thing as to put an end to society. But the existence of civil government depends upon the obedience that is paid to the supreme magistrate. The moment he loses his authority, all government is at an end. As self-preservation, therefore, teaches men to applaud whatever tends to promote the welfare of society, and to blame whatever is likely to hurt it; so the same principle, if they would think and speak consistently, ought to teach them to applaud upon all occasions obedience to the civil magistrate, and to blame all disobedience and rebellion. The very ideas of laudable and blameable, ought to be the same with those of obedience and disobedience. The laws of the civil magistrate, therefore, ought to be regarded as the sole ultimate standards of what was just and unjust, of what was right and wrong. It was the avowed intention of Mr. Hobbes, by propagating these notions, to subject the consciences of men immediately to the civil, and not to the ecclesiastical powers, whose turbulence and ambition, he had been taught, by the example of his own times, to regard as the principal source of the disorders of society. His doctrine, upon this account, was peculiarly offensive to Theologians, who accordingly did not fail to vent their indignation against him with great asperity and bitterness. It was likewise offensive to all sound moralists, as it supposed that there was no natural distinction between right and wrong, that these were mutable and changeable, and depended upon the mere arbitrary will of the civil magistrate. This account of things, therefore, 352was attacked from all quarters, and by all sorts of weapons, by sober reason as well as by furious declamation. In order to confute so odious a doctrine, it was necessary to prove, that antecedent to all law or positive institution, the mind was naturally endowed with a faculty, by which it distinguished in certain actions and affections, the qualities of right, laudable, and virtuous, and in others those of wrong, blameable, and vicious. Law, it was justly observed by Dr. Cudworth,[23] could not be the original source of those distinctions; since upon the supposition of such a law, it must either be right to obey it, and wrong to disobey it, or indifferent whether we obeyed it, or disobeyed it. That law which it was indifferent whether we obeyed or disobeyed, could not, it was evident, be the source of those distinctions; neither could that which it was right to obey and wrong to disobey, since even this still supposed the antecedent notions or ideas of...
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 Gut Check Wisdom
Your immediate emotional reactions to moral situations contain more reliable information than logical arguments that come later.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches you to recognize and trust your immediate emotional responses to ethical situations as sophisticated pattern recognition, not primitive weakness.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when something at work or home makes you feel uneasy but you can't immediately explain why—investigate that feeling instead of dismissing it.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
State of nature
The theoretical condition of humanity before organized government existed. Philosophers used this concept to argue about whether humans are naturally good or evil, and whether we need authority to behave morally.
Modern Usage:
We see this debate today when people argue whether humans need strict laws and surveillance to behave, or if we're naturally decent and just need basic rules.
Civil magistrate
The person or institution with legal authority to govern and make laws. In Smith's time, this meant kings, judges, or government officials who had the power to decide what's legal.
Modern Usage:
Today this includes judges, police, government officials, and anyone with legal authority to enforce rules in our communities.
Moral sentiment
The immediate emotional response we have to right and wrong behavior. Smith argues these gut feelings about morality come naturally, before we think logically about what's ethical.
Modern Usage:
This is that instant feeling of disgust when you see someone being cruel, or the warm feeling when you witness kindness - your emotional moral compass.
Reason as moral principle
The philosophical belief that logical thinking, not emotions, should determine what's right and wrong. Supporters argued we can figure out morality the same way we solve math problems.
Modern Usage:
This shows up today when people say emotions cloud judgment and we should make all decisions based purely on facts and logic.
Ecclesiastical powers
The authority and influence of religious institutions, especially their ability to tell people what's morally right or wrong. In Smith's era, churches often competed with governments for moral authority.
Modern Usage:
We see this tension today between religious leaders and secular authorities over moral issues like marriage, education, and social policies.
Ultimate standards
The final authority that determines what counts as right or wrong behavior. The question is whether this comes from government, religion, reason, or our natural feelings.
Modern Usage:
This is the ongoing debate about who gets to decide moral standards - lawmakers, religious leaders, scientific experts, or individual conscience.
Characters in This Chapter
Mr. Hobbes
Philosophical antagonist
Thomas Hobbes represents the dangerous idea that morality is whatever those in power say it is. Smith uses him as an example of how reducing ethics to obedience can justify tyranny.
Modern Equivalent:
The authoritarian boss who says 'because I said so' is the only rule that matters
Critics of Hobbes
Counter-voices
These unnamed philosophers argue against Hobbes by claiming reason, not authority, should determine right and wrong. They believe humans can think their way to moral truth.
Modern Equivalent:
The debate team captain who thinks every moral question can be solved with enough logical arguments
Key Quotes & Analysis
"The very ideas of laudable and blameable, ought to be the same with those of obedience and disobedience."
Context: Smith explains how Hobbes's logic leads to the conclusion that good equals obedient and bad equals disobedient.
This reveals the dangerous endpoint of Hobbes's thinking - it eliminates personal moral judgment and makes authority the only measure of right and wrong. Smith shows how this could justify any government action.
In Today's Words:
According to this thinking, 'good person' just means 'person who follows orders' and 'bad person' means 'person who questions authority.'
"The laws of the civil magistrate, therefore, ought to be regarded as the sole ultimate standards of what was just and unjust, of what was right and wrong."
Context: Smith outlines the logical conclusion of Hobbes's argument about government authority and morality.
This shows how reducing morality to legal compliance eliminates the possibility of unjust laws. Smith demonstrates why this reasoning is flawed and dangerous to human conscience.
In Today's Words:
Whatever the government says is legal is automatically moral, and whatever's illegal is automatically wrong - no questions allowed.
"To preserve society, therefore, according to him, was to support civil government, and to destroy civil government was the same thing as to put an end to society."
Context: Smith explains Hobbes's belief that government and civilization are the same thing.
This reveals Hobbes's fear-based view of human nature and his belief that without strong authority, humans would destroy each other. Smith questions whether this justifies blind obedience.
In Today's Words:
Hobbes basically said that questioning the government is the same as wanting chaos and the end of civilization.
Thematic Threads
Authority
In This Chapter
Smith challenges the idea that moral authority comes from government or institutions rather than internal compass
Development
Introduced here
In Your Life:
You might question whether workplace policies or family expectations align with what feels genuinely right to you.
Emotion vs Logic
In This Chapter
Smith argues emotions provide the foundation for morality while reason organizes and applies those feelings
Development
Introduced here
In Your Life:
You might recognize that your 'gut feelings' about people or situations often prove more accurate than logical analysis alone.
Personal Growth
In This Chapter
Understanding the source of moral judgment helps develop better decision-making skills
Development
Introduced here
In Your Life:
You might start trusting your immediate reactions to ethical dilemmas instead of dismissing them as 'just feelings.'
Social Expectations
In This Chapter
Smith shows how society tries to impose external moral standards that may conflict with natural moral sense
Development
Introduced here
In Your Life:
You might notice when social pressure pushes you to accept something that feels fundamentally wrong.
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
According to Smith, what's wrong with Hobbes's idea that morality is just whatever the government says it is?
analysis • surface - 2
Why does Smith think our emotional reactions to right and wrong are more important than logical reasoning?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about a time when something felt morally wrong to you before you could explain why. What does Smith's theory say about that gut reaction?
application • medium - 4
When someone in authority tries to convince you that something harmful is 'for your own good,' how can you use Smith's insights to evaluate their claim?
application • deep - 5
If our moral compass comes from immediate feelings rather than rules or authority, what does this mean for how we should make ethical decisions in daily life?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Trust Your Gut Check
Think of a recent situation where you felt something was wrong but couldn't immediately explain why. Write down what happened, what you felt in your gut, and what logical reasons came later. Then analyze: Was your initial emotional reaction accurate? How might things have gone differently if you'd trusted or ignored that first feeling?
Consider:
- •Your emotional response happened faster than your logical analysis
- •Authority figures or social pressure might have made you doubt your gut reaction
- •The difference between what felt right and what seemed logical or convenient
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you ignored your gut feeling about someone's character or a situation's ethics. What happened, and what would you do differently now?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 39: The Final Word on Moral Judgment
Moving forward, we'll examine simple moral rules often fail in complex situations, and understand different philosophical schools approach right and wrong. These insights bridge the gap between classic literature and modern experience.