In the last post we introduced Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Shaftesbury, and discussed his Stoic-inspired views on beauty, nature, and virtue. Today, guided by Michael B. Gill’s excellent book A Philosophy of Beauty: Shaftesbury on Nature, Virtue, and Art, we’re going to pull all these strands together to look at his philosophy of moral beauty.
Before we jump in, I just want to clarify why we’re exploring Shaftesbury’s ideas in the first place. One reason is that Shaftesbury has been unjustly forgotten in the history of philosophy, and it’s important to recognize his contributions. As Michael Gill says, Shaftesbury “pioneer[ed] a moral psychological approach that would become extraordinarily fruitful for Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith”:
Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith all followed Shaftesbury in his development of the moral sense, and in his connection of virtue to beauty. The theories of moral sense and beauty that Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith developed were all different in certain respects from Shaftesbury, as well as from each other. But the basic framework that would become so distinctive of the moral philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment was set by Shaftesbury.
Michael Gill, p. 84
So Shaftesbury’s ideas were extremely influential in the 18th century and made major contributions to both ethics and aesthetics. It’s quite possible that the history of philosophy would have looked very different without him.
Our second reason for considering his work is I think we can still take inspiration from his ideas today. The same reasons that Shaftesbury had for aspiring to moral beauty are still relevant for us in the 21st century: beauty speaks to us in a concrete way, which can help solidify our understanding of and aspiration toward virtue. You can let me know in the comments whether or not you agree.
Human Systems
Previously we learned of Shaftesbury’s emphasis on systems, as well as his belief that beauty results from the orderly and functional arrangement of parts to whole within a given system. In keeping with the Stoic tradition, and especially the works of Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, Shaftesbury equated beauty to virtue: the proper functioning of a person or thing within its natural context.
Since humans are part of the cosmos—the largest system—we are beautiful when we function well with the world around us. Our actions are virtuous if they contribute to the wellbeing of the larger system, and, conversely, our actions are vicious if they work against the larger system. As Shaftesbury says in his magnum opus, Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times:
We have found, that to deserve the name of good or virtuous, a creature must have all his inclinations and affections, his dispositions of mind and temper, sutable, and agreeing with the good of his kind, or of that system in which he is included, and of which he constitutes a part… And to be wanting in any of these, or to have their contrarys, is depravity, corruption, and vice.1
Not only should things fit well into their larger context, but they should also fulfill their purpose. In addition to taking a systemic, part-to-whole view of behavior, Shaftesbury here suggests that virtue results when a creature “agree[s] with the good of his kind.” This is the standard Stoic position on social affection as being in agreement with nature: humans are rationally social creatures who are naturally disposed toward mutual cooperation and affection.
In emphasizing natural sociability, Shaftesbury was pushing back against claims by Hobbes and Locke, then ascendant, that humans were naturally selfish creatures.2 We don’t need external coercion to make us ethical people, Shaftesbury thought; we have an innate moral sense, guided by positive affection toward others. This sense is as “natural and proper” to us as any of our body parts. Just as the function of the lungs is to breathe and the stomach to digest, the natural function of our moral affections is to show “parental kindness, zeal for posterity, concern for the propagation and nurture of the young, love of fellowship and company, compassion, mutual succour, and the rest of this kind.”
So for humans, virtue consists in a character that (1) fits well into the bigger system of the world; and (2) corresponds to the natural functioning of a human as rational and sociable. But there is one final piece we need to add to this picture, and that is the internal functioning of the individual human. Not only do we need to agree with the world, but we also need to agree with ourselves. You could call this property internal harmony. Shaftesbury frequently referred to it as integrity, which Michael Gill explains as “the property of being one, of wholeness”:
Something has integrity when it constitutes a single, coherent entity, when each part harmonizes with every other. We generally use the word ‘integrity’ nowadays to signify internal harmony, the state of being in agreement with oneself. To have this kind of integrity is to act in accord with one’s own principles, all of one’s psychological aspects cohering with each other. To lack this integrity is to be in conflict with oneself, to harbor incompatible affections. Shaftesbury affirms the importance of this internal integrity, contending that it is something the virtuous possesses and the vicious does not. The virtuous person has ‘A Mind or Reason well compos’d, quiet, easy within it-self, and such as can freely bear its own Inspection and Review.’
Michael B. Gill, p. 67
The ideal of internal harmony goes back to Zeno’s earliest definition of the Stoic goal of life: living in agreement. Even before the Stoic slogan was standardized to living in agreement with nature, Zeno declared the final end to be “living according to a single and consonant rational principle since those who live in conflict are unhappy.”3 This goal threads throughout the entire history of Stoicism, from Chrysippus to the Roman Stoics to Shaftesbury and up to the present day. Stoicism has always been about bringing the mind into good order and making it consistent with itself.
So to summarize, for Shaftesbury something is beautiful when it
fits well into the larger system
fulfills its nature and
agrees with itself.
Humans are beautiful when we
fit well into the larger system (the world)
fulfill our nature (rational and sociable) and
agree with ourselves (internal harmony and integrity).
The Beauty of Virtue and the Art of Living
We’ve now considered the elements that make something beautiful in Shaftesbury’s Stoic-inspired philosophy. We’ve seen how a human character can reflect the same qualities that make other things beautiful. But you might still be wondering why Shaftesbury considers virtue beautiful. Why not just call it proportional and well-structured? Why insist that “beauty and good are still the same” and “there is no real good beside the enjoyment of beauty”?
I think the answer lies in our aesthetic response to natural and moral beauty. You’ll recall that in Part I, we examined how “beauty supervenes as a kind of secondary value on properties that are intrinsically valuable themselves” (Čelkytė, The Stoic Theory of Beauty, p. 69). Virtue may be fitting and functional, but the overall effect is greater than the sum of these components. We experience it as beauty.
In the Shaftesburyan tradition, this internal experience of beauty is pleasant and desirable, exerting a motivational pull on us. Whether we see true beauty in a concerto, a landscape, or a person, we are instinctively drawn to it. Our psyche is moved toward these experiences.
This is also true when we consider our own character. We are motivated to pursue a state of inner alignment—the alignment of our values, opinions, motives, and actions—that we experience as elevated, harmonious, and beautiful. We can recognize the “glow” of inner beauty in others, and we are drawn to experience this for ourselves.
The motivational component is extremely important for anyone trying to live a beautiful, virtuous life. As we all know, virtue is demanding! How do we stay motivated? How do we translate something as abstract as virtue into our everyday experience of life?
Shaftesbury believed that appreciating moral beauty can help shape our motives toward virtue. Michael Gill contrasts Shaftesbury with Kant, who was pessimistic about human ability to mold or change our affections. Shaftesbury, on the other hand argued that not only are we capable of shaping our affections and character, but that we will only be happy if we do so. Once again following the Stoics,4 he sees the wise person as a “self-improving artist” or “the architect of his own fortune”:
The wise and able man, who with a slight regard to [outward] things, applies himself to cultivate another soil, builds in a different matter from that of stone or marble; and…becomes in truth the architect of his own life and fortune; by laying within himself the lasting and sure foundations of order, peace, ability, and concord.
Shaftesbury, The Moralists, p. 428
The analogy of self-as-artist recurs in the Characteristicks, as Shaftesbury compares the love of virtue to an artisan’s love of their craft. If living a good life is an art, as the ancient Stoics suggested it is, then each of us is constantly engaged in practicing that art. Like good artists, we need to be utterly devoted to this art for its own sake. Echoing Marcus Aurelius,5 Shaftesbury insists that a true artist never compromises their art, even if scorned by others or tempted by money:
There is nothing more certain than that a real genius and thorough artist in whatever kind can never, without the greatest unwillingness and shame, be induced to act below his character, and for mere interest be prevailed with to prostitute his art or science by performing contrary to its known rules…
“Sir,” says a poor fellow of this kind to his rich customer, “you are mistaken in coming to me for such a piece of workmanship. Let who will make it for you as you fancy, I know it to be wrong. Whatever I have made hitherto has been true work. And neither for your sake nor for any body else’s shall I put my hand to any other.”
This is virtue! Real virtue and love of truth; independent of opinion and above the world. This disposition transferred to the whole of life, perfects a character and makes that probity and worth which the learned are often at such a loss to explain. For is there not a workmanship and truth in actions?
Shaftesbury, Characteristicks, pp. 170-171
Following his Stoic role models, Shaftesbury thought each of us is capable of shaping our own lives for better or worse. By envisioning our lives as art and ourselves as artists, we are motivated to create something beautiful.
Moral Beauty Today
We’ve now reviewed the components of beauty in Shaftesbury’s philosophy, seen how moral beauty connects to virtue, and thought about how beauty can inspire us to become more virtuous. It seems to me that these are all areas where Shaftesbury’s ideas on moral beauty can contribute to a philosophical life today. I would summarize these areas as:
Virtue is beautiful for its order, structure, proportion, regularity, balance, and harmony. These principles apply to the world at large and to humans.
When we see virtue as beautiful, we are strongly motivated to attain it.
Seeing ourselves as artists of our own lives grants us agency to strive for moral beauty.
For me personally, thinking of virtue as beauty and ethics as art is quite inspirational and motivating. In contrast, if we normally see ethical action in terms of duty or obligation, we feel like we’re punishing ourselves by acting ethically. If we see personal integrity in terms of willpower—overcoming weakness or something like that—then we don’t feel like we can ever change or overcome our lack of fortitude. Moral failure is lurking just around the corner. It’s a dispiriting and demotivating approach to virtue.
If, however, we see virtue as beauty, it exerts its own magnetic pull on us. Who doesn’t want to be beautiful? Who doesn’t want to spend time with a beautiful companion? The spirit is instantly elevated and the demanding life of ethical aspiration is turned into a beautiful art form. Suddenly virtue seems worth all the hard work.
While we can’t live our whole lives at a fever pitch of moral exhilaration, we need a very appealing goal to stay consistently motivated. And while sometimes we have to do things we don’t like, we will quickly burn out if the whole enterprise of virtue is unlikeable.
That’s why I think we need a sense of moral beauty in Stoicism to both guide and motivate us. It’s time to bring back moral beauty! I’ll give the last word here to Shaftesbury, as he closes the Characteristicks in describing the beauty of virtue:
So that virtue, which of all excellences and beauties is the chief and most amiable; that which is the prop and ornament of human affairs; which upholds communities, maintains union, friendship, and correspondence amongst men; that by which countries, as well as private families, flourish and are happy, and for want of which everything comely, conspicuous, great, and worthy, must perish and go to ruin; that single quality, thus beneficial to all society, and to mankind in general, is found equally a happiness and good to each creature in particular, and is that by which alone man can be happy, and without which he must be miserable.
And thus virtue is the good, and vice the ill of every one.
Compare to Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 2.9: Always keep the following points in mind: what the nature of the whole is, and what my own nature is; and how my nature is related to that of the whole, and what kind of a part it is of what kind of a whole, and that no one can prevent you, in all that you do and say, from always being in accord with that nature of which you are a part.
Interestingly, Locke was a close friend of Shaftesbury’s grandfather and oversaw the young earl’s education. In Michael Gill’s words, “Anthony and Locke had great affection for each other, in the way of a close nephew-uncle relationship” (p. 3). Shaftesbury always held him in high esteem, even though he came to disagree with Locke’s philosophy.
According to Arius Didymus in the Anthology of Stobaeus, 2.6a.
Epictetus, Discourses, 1.15, 2: “Philosophy doesn't promise to secure any external good for man, since it would then be embarking on something that lies outside its proper subject matter. For just as wood is the material of the carpenter, and bronze that of the sculptor, the art of living has each individual's own life as its material.”
Meditations, 6.35: “Do you not see how common craftsmen, although willing to accommodate themselves to laymen to a certain extent, hold fast all the same to the principles of their craft, and cannot bear to depart from them? Is it not strange, then, that architects and doctors should regard the principles of their craft with higher respect than human beings regard the principle that governs their life, which he shares in common with the gods?”
Thanks, Brittany. I particularly liked the metaphor of each of us as an artist of our own integrity. It reminded me of the Buddhist idea that we should “water the flowers, not the weeds” ie character develops according to what we repeatedly attend to and practise.
What is striking is how well this also fits with modern ideas of habit formation. Repeated patterns of thought and behaviour become increasingly embedded through the brain’s habit systems, including the basal ganglia. In that sense, Shaftesbury’s “self-improving artist” looks surprisingly modern.
I also wondered whether Darwin adds another useful layer here. In The Descent of Man he links morality to social instinct, sympathy, reason, community approval and eventually conscience. Conscience seems an important missing word in your discussion. It may be the internal mechanism through which our social instincts, reflection and habits become a relatively stable moral character.
There is also an interesting tension here between agency and determinism. We do not choose our inherited temperament, instincts or much of our early conditioning, but we may still have some power over what we repeatedly reinforce. That actually makes the artist metaphor stronger for me. We do not choose the stone, but we can still shape the sculpture!
So perhaps Stoicism, Buddhism, Darwin and neuroscience are describing different levels of the same process. We inherit certain tendencies, reflect on them, practise particular responses, form habits, and gradually shape the kind of person we become.
Thanks a lot!