Thomas Mautner 128 his theory in express opposition to the modern natural law theories and who regarded their doctrine of rights as nonsensical. One possible reason might be that Hutcheson was unaware of the extent of the differences. Confusion of various right-concepts was not uncommon in writers at the time, as Hägerström has observed.^^ Perhaps he merely failed to notice the important discrepancies. But this will hardly provide a full explanation. More to the point is the fact that Hutcheson and Pufendorf had a common main ideological enemy: theological orthodoxy. For Bentham, the main ideological enemy was political conservatism. Hence he places Pufendorf in the opposite camp. Another possible explanation might be by reference to the literary conventions. A polemical and even abusive style, cherished for so long by combative theologians and academics was being abandoned in favour of new standards of politeness, urbanity and elegance, exemplified by Shaftesbury, and “it was the prevailing customof the time not to mention contemporary writers by name” or at most to do so very sparingly. We may further note the fact that some of Hutcheson’s major works, in fact all the major works after acceding to the Glasgow chair in 1730, were written as texts for students whose philosophical understanding was limited. Hutcheson was on all accounts an excellent teacher and was therefore clearly aware that it would be inept to bring in conceptual discussions far beyond the grasp of those in his charge, and he was, moreover, firmly committed to the view that the main aim of a course in moral philosophy was the moral improvement of the students.®^ In this context, it would have been of far greater importance to himthat the substantive moral teachings were quite similar, and thus there would be little reason to advertise objections of philosophical principle. In Hutcheson’s earlier writings, which were not meant to be student’s texts, there are, on the other hand, some relevant passages. Some relate to ethical rationalism. Others relate to psychological egoism, against which Hutcheson argued in all his ethical writings.^^ Hägerström (1965) p. 58 adverts to the confusion in Thomasius and others between a right (subjektives Recht) and permission or the mere absence of a prohibition. Kemp Smith p. 43. On this point he differed from Hume, who wrote to him 17.9.1739: “One may consider the mind either as an anatomist or as a painter: either to discover its most secret springs and principles, or to describe the grace and beauty of its actions. . . Any warm sentiment of morals I am afraid would have the air of declamation amidst abstract reasonings, and would be esteemed contrary to good taste. . .” Hume uses the same analogy at the end of his Treatise (3, 3, 6). Noted by Blackstone p. 6.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=