The Idea of Pleasure in Anglican Religious Culture, 1650-1733

我的论文《1650 - 1733年英国国教宗教文化中的快乐观念》（The Idea of Pleasure in Anglican Religious Culture，1650 - 1733）对1650 - 1733年间正统的英国国教牧师和作家如何重塑快乐的道德地位这一普遍观念提出了新的理解。英国圣公会的思想家们提出了一系列关于快乐的合理秩序的创新伦理论点。在这样做的时候，他们试图将人类的破坏性欲望引向好的目的。通过提升世俗生活中理性的、宗教的快乐，这些牧师旨在证明，宗教上的不墨守成规者、无神论者、自然神论者和罪人的真正利益在于敬虔的目的和对牧师和君主权威的服从。这种快乐的道德语言的恢复解决了当前史学界对英国国教道德哲学的哲学内容的忽视，这通常被视为直接还原为各种“主义”的基督教和基督教。将这些重大的伦理转变置于正统宗教话语中，反过来又揭示了世纪早期围绕奢侈品和商业的争论中的利害关系。因为这些辩论主要不是关于为了快乐而追求消费在道德上是否可以接受。相反，他们集中在是否有一个合理的层次的快乐访问的原因，谴责奢侈品作为对立的真正快乐的尘世和永恒的生活。这种语言的概念轨迹的快乐是通过比较约翰洛克的发展伦理思想与罗伯特南，公共演说家的牛津大学后，1660年，塞缪尔帕克，1686年后任牛津主教。在权力交接期间，洛克和南方卷入了一场圣公会共同面对激情问题的斗争：道德错误和社会冲突源于激情破坏理性的正常运作。保皇党对英国内战的一个突出解释是，它是由清教徒难以驾驭的激情引起的。因此，在17世纪50年代，老一代的英国圣公会作家为这种道德困境寻求新的伦理答案，从完全成熟的伊壁鸠鲁主义到在亚里士多德框架内对快乐的理性秩序的评价。复辟后，洛克和南方参与了一个更广泛的圣公会回应人类的享乐主义的性质，通过优先考虑有关快乐的理性秩序的论点，一个哲学主张，往往取代非享乐主义的概念，人类的动机和善良。1665年以后，洛克和帕克一起沿着，用这些共同的假设来证明一个激进的结论：善良可以还原为快乐，自然法的义务在很大程度上可以从上帝施加奖励和惩罚的力量中推导出来。因此，洛克的道德观念转变的过程反映了英国国教的快乐道德语言中的一种哲学运动，从南方的温和立场到帕克的激进立场，这种快乐语言中甚至最具还原主义色彩的方面的发展共鸣反映在洛克的《论人类理解》（1689）的接受上。因为《语言起源论》的道德教义甚至引起了英国国教正统派的一些重要人物的积极回应，比如切斯特的高级教会主教弗朗西斯·加斯特雷尔。17世纪末和18世纪初围绕奢侈品的争论进一步说明了这些伦理思想日益增长的影响力。因为奢侈品的反对者和捍卫者通常都认为，令人愉快的消费在道德上是合法的;他们在奢侈品是否会干扰更令人愉快的追求上存在分歧。正是这一论点支撑了乔治贝克莱主教在《阿尔西弗朗》（1733）中对伯纳德·曼德维尔在《蜜蜂寓言》（1723）中著名的奢侈品辩护的批评。

My thesis-The Idea of Pleasure in Anglican Religious Culture, 1650-1733-presents a new understanding of how orthodox Anglican clergymen and writers remoulded common notions of the moral status of pleasure between 1650 and 1733. For Anglican thinkers developed a series of innovative ethical arguments about the rational order of pleasure. In doing so, they sought to direct humanity's disruptive appetites towards good ends. By exalting the rational, religious pleasures of the earthly life, these clergymen aimed to demonstrate that the true interests of religious nonconformists, atheists, deists and sinners lay in godly ends and obedience to clerical and monarchical authority. The recovery of this moral language of pleasure addresses the current historiographical neglect of the philosophical content of Anglican moral philosophy, which is often treated as straightforwardly reducible to the various 'isms' of Thomism and Aristotelianism. Situating these significant ethical shifts within orthodox religious discourse in turn reveals what was at stake in the early eighteenth century debates around luxury and commerce. For these debates were not primarily about whether it was morally acceptable to pursue consumption for the sake of pleasure. Rather, they centred around whether there was a rational hierarchy of pleasures accessible to reason, which condemned luxury as antithetical to the true joys of both earthly and eternal life.The conceptual trajectory of this language of pleasure is illustrated by comparing John Locke's developing ethical ideas with those of Robert South, Public Orator of the University of Oxford after 1660, and Samuel Parker, Bishop of Oxford after 1686. During the Interregnum, Locke and South were involved in a common Anglican confrontation with the problem of the passions: the theory that moral error and social conflict derived from the passions disrupting the proper functioning of reason. A prominent Royalist explanation for the English Civil War was that it arose from the unruly passions of the Puritans. Consequently, in the 1650s, an older generation of Anglican writers had sought new ethical answers to this moral predicament, varying from a fully-fledged Epicureanism to a valorisation of the rational order of pleasure within an Aristotelian framework. After the Restoration, Locke and South participated in a wider Anglican response to humanity's hedonistic nature by prioritising arguments about the rational order of pleasure-a philosophical claim which often superseded non-hedonic notions of human motivation and goodness. After 1665, Locke, along with Parker, used these common assumptions to justify a radical conclusion: that goodness was reducible to pleasure, and that the obligation of natural law could largely be derived from God's power of imposing rewards and punishments. Thus, the course of Locke's shifting moral ideas reflected a philosophical movement within an Anglican moral language of pleasure, from South's moderate position to Parker's radical stance.The developing resonance of even the most reductionist aspects of this language of pleasure was reflected in the reception of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689). For the moral doctrines of the Essay evoked positive responses from even such pillars of Anglican orthodoxy as Francis Gastrell, the high church Bishop of Chester. The increasing influence of these ethical ideas was further illustrated by the late seventeenth and early eighteenth-century debates around luxury. For both opponents and defenders of luxury often accepted that pleasant consumption was morally licit; they were divided over whether luxury interfered with more delightful pursuits. It was precisely this argument that underpinned Bishop George Berkeley's critique in Alciphron (1733) of Bernard Mandevillle's famous defence of luxury in the Fable of the Bees (1723).