|
Ethics, for Spinoza, is a
matter of liberation from the bondage to passive affects
through the cultivation of reason. He says that the mind is
able to weaken the hold passions have over an individual.
This is accomplished by acquiring adequate ideas of the
affects. To reach higher intelligent expressions of human
power, reason must regulate passion. As we gain more
adequate understanding of the causes acting on us, our power
(or freedom) increases. Such freedom is realizable through
the exercise of reason and reflection. A person's goal is to
attain a relative adequacy that will increase his powers of
intellectual and physical self-determination in place of
passive, self-enslaving passions. This involves acting to
escape the constraints and to embrace the possibilities and
necessitates an enactive enhancement of individual power and
autonomy. The mind is active only in so far as it
understands adequate ideas. This understanding is the basis
of virtue. In fact, the effort to understand is the primary
and sole foundation of virtue.
According to Spinoza,
adequate ideas are formed in an orderly and rational manner
in three stages including sense experience (and
imagination), reason, and intuition. If a mind reaches the
level of scientia intuitiva it realizes its actual
nature and sees individual things for what they truly are.
Understanding through this type of knowledge is under the
aspect of eternity and in relation to God. Spinoza was
optimistic with respect to the cognitive powers of human
beings for understanding the nature of the individual human
person and other organisms and their place in the natural
order of the world. Spinoza explains that a person whose
mind is made up mainly by adequate ideas participates more
fully in eternity than a man whose mind is constituted
largely by inadequate ideas. He says that a man's intellect
is eternal as part of God's infinite intellect. Genuine
understanding of the universe is the form of a person's
participation in the absolute and eternal God-substance. The
human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God, and,
when the mind knows, it is God who knows and who is known to
the extent that he can be explained through the nature of
the human mind. A person of higher understanding is aware of
a certain eternal necessity of himself, of objects, and of
God. As a result, he enjoys peace of mind and self-control.
Spinoza's free person
experiences calmness of mind and experiences good and bad
events with equanimity. By living under the guidance of
reason, a person will enjoy the pleasure of
self-contentment. He will concentrate on doing those things
that are most important to him and he will take care of
others. For Spinoza, virtue involves the seeking of one's
own advantage. The virtue of courage is the desire of an
individual to endeavor to preserve his own being according
to the dictates of reason alone. In addition, nobility is
the virtue of a person to attempt to help others and to be
friends with them. Man is aware of his kinship with, and
similarity to, others. Recognizing man's natural sociality,
Spinoza states that it is natural to pursue the happiness of
our fellow men.
According to Spinoza, the
free individual does not fear eternal punishment nor does he
expect eternal rewards in some after-life. He is not
concerned with notions such as apocalypse, redemption, and
so on. Such a man realizes that the mind (or soul) is not
immortal in any personal sense but that it does have a
particular type of eternity. The human mind, being part of
the intellect of God, cannot be destroyed absolutely with
the body. There is something of it that remains which is
eternal. Although Spinoza holds a doctrine of personal
identity, he does not hold a doctrine of personal
immortality.
Spinoza provides the
moral world with an immanent basis. His metaphysics and
ethics are inextricably connected. He says that to act in
accordance with our nature is to act virtuously. The purpose
of his ethics is free people to live in the world as it is
without distracting themselves by appealing to a
transcendent divine providence. In his ethical naturalism,
ethical propositions are explainable in terms of natural
propositions. Spinoza's goal was to bridge gaps and
reconcile schisms such as God versus Nature, determinism
versus freedom, fact versus value, mental versus physical,
eternity versus temporality, reason versus passion,
objective versus subjective, etc.
Spinoza explains mental
phenomena as grounded in the objective natural world and
moral values as rooted in the objective characteristics of
the universe. He views the study of the mind and the study
of ethics to be deeply intertwined – ethics is a function of
the understanding mind. By nature, the domain of the mind is
ethical in character.
Spinoza's ethics is
organized around the search for the highest good, the
achievement of the highest human perfection, which once
attained will guarantee happiness. The good is whatever
makes a person more perfect and it is up to each individual
to evaluate or judge what is good and what is bad. For
Spinoza, something is useful and, therefore valuable, if it
increases a person's power of action. It is obvious that
Spinoza's value theory is connected to his metaphysics. He
says that if something agrees with our nature then it cannot
be bad and that a useful thing is valuable in relation to a
particular agent. Although value is relative to a man's
essence as a rational being, it is also objectively valuable
because it is grounded on a standard independent of
subjective attitudes.
Although maintaining that
goods are only valuable relative to particular individuals,
Spinoza argues that some goods have value which does not
change with the person or the circumstances. He
distinguishes between circumstantially valuable goods and
non-circumstantially valuable goods. According to Spinoza,
goods for the body can be truly valuable and good, but what
leads to understanding is certainly valuable and good. He
says that knowledge of God is the mind's greatest good.
Knowledge of God is always useful and is thus
non-circumstantially valuable. Whereas some knowledge is
useful in some circumstances and for some persons but not
for other persons, knowledge of God is always beneficial to
every individual. Knowledge of God is knowledge of nature
including the principles, laws, and rules by which nature
operates.
According to Spinoza, the state of nature is characterized by the
primacy of the individual. Civil society arises when men recognize the
advantages of society with respect to the enhancement of their power
as individuals. Spinoza emphasizes that the individual retains his
natural right when he enters civil society. These free individuals
will comprise a harmonious society as long as men live according to
the guidance of reason rather than according to their passion. In a
society in which all persons live by the direction of reason there
will be no need for a political authority to restrict people's
actions. Unfortunately, human beings do not always live under the
guidance of reason. It follows that a sovereign or state is necessary
in order to ensure through the threat of force that individuals are
protected from the unrestrained forceful pursuit of self-interest on
the part of other individuals.
Spinoza teaches that the
state must be deduced from the common nature of man. He sees the real
purpose of the state as freedom. He conceives of the state as an
expression of the rational order of the universe. As an institution,
the state is the rational embodiment of checks upon the irrational
power of the populace. Spinoza explains that sovereign authority is
required to maintain stability for the sake of its citizens' potential
flourishing. Holding that the origin and purpose of the state is
security, he emphasizes that morality is not the concern of the state.
The state has no moral foundation. It is devoid of normative
principles. Spinoza understood that the scope of morality was deeper
and wider than the scope of politics. The state comes into being
because social order (i.e., peace) is a necessary condition for the
exercise of individuals' power of self-preservation. A person is free
to the degree that he rationally decides what ends are in his
interest.
Spinoza explains that a
person is free in society whenever the state is ruled by reason. In
such a state, political freedom involves the least possible
encroachment on personal freedom including the exercise of one's
judgment. Spinoza's prescriptive political philosophy suggests that
state force be limited to providing peace and social order. Such a
minimalist state would leave people free to pursue their own projects.
The sovereign's power does not extend to all aspects of an
individual's life.
For Spinoza, the proper
objects of desire are: (1) to know things by their primary or first
causes; (2) to control one's passions (or to acquire virtuous habits);
and (3) to live one's life in safety, security, and physical
well-being. The means of attaining the first two reside in the nature
of man himself and depend solely upon the laws of human nature.
Politics applies to only the third classification because the means to
insure security of life and conservation of the body lie mainly in
external circumstances. This implies the need for a society with
definite and uniform laws.
Morality is excluded from
Spinoza's political theory. He understood that politics is not
appropriate for the production of virtue. Morality surpasses the
political. Politics is pertinent to providing security and physical
well-being and not to ethical matters. Politics is concurred with
peace and commodious living which are necessary, but not sufficient,
conditions for attaining the good. However, their achievement is far
removed from, and has little to do with, character development and
substantive morality. According to Spinoza, political theory should
not be concerned with morality and morality cannot be reduced to a
matter of rights nor to the operation of the state which comes about
through social cooperation and agreement as a means of attaining
social order.
Social contract, for
Spinoza, is based on the desire for individual freedom. People desire
a stable political community to provide a substantial degree of
personal freedom particularly regarding freedom to philosophize and on
freedom of religious expression. Spinoza argues that the security and
stability of society is enhanced by freedom of thought. He explains
that individuals exercise their judgment by natural right and that no
one, including the state, has the power to command the thoughts of
another person.
Spinoza states the
expression should be limited only when it directly obstructs the main
purpose of the state. It is only in the most extreme cases that the
state has the right to restrict expression. It is permissible to
express different and conflicting opinions up to the point of defiance
of all law and order (i.e., sedition). It is acceptable to speak
against particular state actions but not against the state's right to
make and enforce laws. Spinoza explains that broad toleration of
expression is a basic component of any social contract. According to
his perfectionist concept of toleration, the more the state is
tolerant, the more likely and more readily it will be for individuals
to be tolerant in their lives. Spinoza's argument for tolerance is
integral to his more comprehensive idea of human flourishing.
Spinoza maintains that
the main threat to freedom comes from church ministers who depend upon
fear and superstitions to gain and to keep power. He explains that
some clergy want to use politics as a means for resolving theological
disputes or for seeking dominance. He wanted to free the public square
of clerical politician-preachers overwhelmed with their own holiness.
Some clergy advance claims as a means to divide government and pave
the way to their own ascendancy to power. Spinoza, like Epicurus, saw
religion as a major source of the world's problems as religious claims
and doctrinal differences often intensify into religious wars. He
observes that legislation of beliefs was a major source of religious
schisms. Schisms emerge from efforts of authorities to decide through
law the intricacies of theological controversies. He also emphasizes
the danger to public stability from the existence of a diversity of
religious sects and ceremonial rites of worship. Spinoza wanted that
state to have sufficient power to effectively battle the clergy and
their various brands of intolerance. Desiring to remove religion as a
disturbing factor in politics, Spinoza advocated the subordination of
religion to politics. This, he said, would prevent sectarianism and
the multiplication of religious battles.
Spinoza's goal was to
divest the clergy of all political power by placing authority over the
practice of religion in the hands of the state. He did not want to
abolish religion but he did want to protect the state from the diverse
judgments of the many. Spinoza suggests that the sovereign should have
total dominance in all secular and spiritual public matters. The state
is thus charged with keeping all members of society to the agreement
of the social contract through its absolute powers with respect to
public affairs. Spinoza emphasizes the need for the preservation of
unity within the state. He thus calls for rights of the sovereign free
of restriction so that the sovereign may be strong enough to protect
individuals from both social and clerical intolerances.
Spinoza's position is
that the state has the same absolute right to command regarding
spiritual rights as it does with respect to temporal rights. By
spiritual rights, Spinoza refers to outward observances of piety and
external religious rites and not to the inward worship of God nor to
piety itself. His goal is to secure freedom from speculative doctrines
and ceremonial practices. He therefore places all questions regarding
external ceremonies and rites in the hands of the state. Spinoza
subordinates religious authority and activities to political
authority. Outward religious practices encroach upon the beliefs and
relationships of citizens and thus fall under state interests. Freedom
of religious diversity is to be permitted among the citizens but this
liberty is limited to private worship and belief. Spinoza's goal is to
divorce politics from the traditional types of religious authority.
Spinoza argues for a
minimal rational religion determined by the state. There is to be no
church separate from the religion instituted by, and regulated by, the
state. He had studied scripture in a similar way as he studied nature
and concluded that the Bible and other religious texts were filled
with speculative and inadequate views. He saw no legitimate purpose in
arguing from authority, opinion, or superstition. Desiring a minimal
number of theoretical propositions for religion, he looked for a form
of rational religion that was in accord with the requirements of
universal human morality. Spinoza concludes that the sovereign should
require adherence to no more than a minimal creed that was neutral
regarding competing sects. He therefore interprets and boils down all
religions to the ideas of justice and charity. He maintained that just
and kind behaviors were to be the pillars of religious belief. Spinoza
says that the only moral lesson that we should take from the Bible is
to obey God which he interprets to mean to love one's neighbor as
oneself. The universal message of scripture is that the law of God
commands only that we know and love God and take the actions necessary
for achieving that condition.
According to Spinoza, to
love one's neighbor is to respect his rights. By restricting the
authority of organized religion to precise rules defined by the
sovereign, Spinoza believes he has liberated reason from the perils of
superstition without eradicating the valuable effects of faith. The
universal covenant he suggests would take the place of various special
covenants and would have been deduced from the principles of morality.
On the other hand,
Spinoza says that inward worship of God would be exempt from the
authority of the state. Inward piety belongs exclusively to the
individual. He observes that a person's inward opinions and feelings
are not directly available to the sovereign. It follows that the best
approach for the sovereign is to establish the rule that religion is
comprised only of justice and charity and that the rights of the
sovereign in religious matters (as well as in secular ones) will
simply pertain to actions.
Spinoza states that
freedom of thought and speech must be sustained. No one can control or
limit another person's thoughts. He adds that it is risky for the
state to attempt to exercise rights over speech. It is also impossible
to achieve. In addition, as an advocate of democracy, Spinoza contends
that freedom of speech must be allowed in order to express the natural
differences among men. Spinoza suggests a self-limitation of the
sovereign regarding religious speech. The state's toleration of
nonestablished religions would be viewed as a discretionary matter
instead of as toleration of religious speech.
Spinoza preferred
democracy over monarchy as the best form of government. He understood
that democratic power was the best political foundation for the
realization of individual freedom. It distributed power with respect
to public affairs as widely as possible. Democracy is congruent with
Spinoza's horizontal metaphysics. Democracy reflects the state of
nature by restricting the right of elected officials to the amount of
their individual power. In addition, the natural heterogeneity of
human beings underpins the heterogeneity of their individual amounts
of power. Democracy mirrors the state of nature as it recognizes in
its structure the differences among individuals. Spinoza also says
that it is proper to treat all citizens as equals because the power of
each, in regard to the entire state, is negligible. His defense of
democracy is a defense of the conditions that make philosophy
possible. By philosophy he means the then-new materialist science and
secular study. Spinoza wanted to preserve philosophy from the
superstitious corruptions of competing organized religions. He did not
want to confound philosophy and theology.
|
