• Home
  • About The Mod Squad

The Mod Squad

A Group Blog in Modern Philosophy

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« What Bugs Hume Folks about Reid?
Welcome New Readers! »

King’s Theory of Election

January 18, 2012 by Kenny Pearce

Archbishop William King’s De Origine Mali (1702; translated into English as An Essay on the Origin of Evil by Edmund Law in 1731) was a philosophical bestseller in the 18th century, but is today remembered, if at all, only because it is criticized in an appendix to Leibniz’s Theodicy. In fact, as Leibniz notes (sect. 1), King’s account of natural evil is basically identical to Leibniz’s. King is less interesting than Leibniz (at least to me) because he doesn’t really provide a metaphysical foundation for his claims about the impossibility of perfect creatures (and so forth), as Leibniz does. However, I did find something quite interesting in King’s book: his account of a faculty he calls ‘election’. This faculty, it seems to me, has important analogies to things Kant and Korsgaard say about the selection of ends, and things Frankfurt says about caring, and I don’t know of any similar theories from this period. I won’t explore these analogies in any detail in this post (I certainly don’t mean to claim that King’s account is identical to any of the mentioned theories); I’ll just try to explain how the theory is motivated and how it is supposed to work.

Chapter 5 of King’s book is concerned with moral evil. In the first two subsections of section 1 he surveys simplistic forms of compatibilism and libertarianism, respectively, and finds them wanting. The basic tenet of compatibilism, as King describes it, is that our freedom is freedom only from compulsion, not from necessity. The compatibilist theory in question says that

he that can follow his own judgment in matters is free. For example, he that is sound in body, and has his faculties and limbs entire, if all external impediments be removed, is at liberty to walk: for he can if he will and nothing but his will is wanting to exert that action (5.1.1.8).

The following paragraph is a very short summary of Locke’s account of uneasiness, and Locke’s denial of that we can be “free … with regard to the immediate acts of the will” (5.1.1.9). In the English translation, Law includes a note stating that “The most remarkable defenders of this opinion, among the Moderns, seem to be Hobbs [sic], Locke, (if he be made consistent with himself) Leibnitz [sic], Bayle, Norris, the Authors of the Philosophical Enquiry Concerning Human Liberty, and of Cato’s Letters.” I am not familiar with the last two books.

King’s characterization of libertarianism is fairly straightforward (5.1.2).

King finds both of these views unsatisfactory: the sort of freedom proposed by the compatibilists is not sufficient for moral responsibility and, as a result, won’t get God off the hook for moral evil. Libertarianism would be great if it could be made to work, but it has a number of problems, and the solutions to those problems which have so far been proposed are “such as are so subtle, so obscure, and so much above the comprehension of the vulgar, that most persons have taken a distaste to them, [and] given up the cause of liberty as desperate” (5.1.2.10). The main problem is that the freedom described by libertarians doesn’t seem like a kind of freedom worth wanting, since it is, essentially, the ability to choose something other than what we judge best (5.1.2.5).

King proposes a middle path. He admits, with the compatibilists, that we have various appetites, and that objects capable of satisfying these appetites are on that account judged to be good. He further admits that it is desirable that our will should be constantly directed toward the best or most desirable objects (5.1.3.1-3). The only way, according to King, that genuine freedom, of the sort required for moral responsibility, can consist with these admissions is if the agent has a power which King calls ‘election’ (5.1.3.16). An agent with this power makes objects good/desirable by ‘electing’ them. This is supposed, according to King, to be the difference between humans and animals: all animal appetites are directed in advance toward particular objects suited to them. Humans have these kinds of appetites as well. However, humans also have a sort of generic appetite, which can be directed toward any object the agent ‘elects’. A consequence of this view, when combined with the view about the relationship between desire and goodness, is that some things are desired by humans because they are good, but other things are good because they are desired by humans (5.1.3.17).

King’s theory also gives a neat account of divine action and the relation between God’s will and the good. King holds, with the theological tradition, that God has no animal appetites. This means, according to King, that the only sort of appetite/desire God has is the generic one involved in the faculty of election. By ‘electing’ this particular possible world, God made it the object of his appetite, and thereby made it good. King argues that only his view can reconcile God’s utter self-sufficiency with his decision to create the world and, therefore, that if the faculty of election were not actually possessed by God, the world would not exist (5.1.4). Since the faculty of election is actual, it is possible. King takes himself to have thereby shown that he has identified a possible type of freedom from necessity which is worth wanting.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

3 Responses

  1. on January 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm Cole Mitchell

    I’m just writing to point out that the two other books mentioned by Law are Anthony Collins’s A Philosophical Enquiry Concerning Human Liberty (reprint on Google Books here http://books.google.com/books?id=KbcRAAAAYAAJ) and some of John Trenchard’s contributions to Cato’s Letters esp. 110, 11, and 116 (online via Liberty Fund here http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/1240/64535).


  2. on January 21, 2012 at 3:56 pm Cole Mitchell

    Oops, that should be 111 rather than 11.


  3. on January 21, 2012 at 8:22 pm Kenny Pearce

    Thanks, Cole, that’s helpful.



Comments are closed.

  • Recent Posts

    • Latitudinarian vs High-Church Philosophy: Two Contrasts
    • Berkeley on Divine and Human Spirits
    • Leibnizian Supercomprehension
    • Browne and Berkeley on the Influence of Words
    • Ibn Sīnā and Descartes on the Nature of Body
  • Contributors

    • beckocopenhaver
    • Chloe Armstrong
    • Chris Meyns
    • Colin Heydt
    • Eugene Marshall
    • LisaShapiro
    • Joshua M. Wood
    • Julia Jorati
    • juliekrwalsh
    • Kenny Pearce
    • Lewis Powell
    • Antonia LoLordo
    • Colin McLear
    • modsquadguest
    • marcy p lascano
    • sethbordner
    • Stewart Duncan
    • Sydney Penner
    • Timothy Yenter
    • Jessica Gordon-Roth
    • Kirsten Walsh
  • Recent Comments

    Sam Rickless on Berkeley’s Manuscript In…
    Locke’s Populi… on Stillingfleet on the “Fu…
    Kenny Pearce on Descartes and the Rise of the…
    Margaret Atherton on Descartes and the Rise of the…
    Kenny Pearce on Descartes and the Rise of the…
    Kenny Pearce on Descartes and the Rise of the…
  • Archives

    • July 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • December 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • June 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • August 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
  • Blogroll

    • blog.kennypearce.net
    • Early Modern Experimental Philosophy
    • Early Modern Thought Online
    • Feminist History of Philosophy
    • Horseless Telegraph
    • Peter Adamson's Blog
  • Modern Philosophy Resources

    • Early English Books Online
    • Early Modern Philosophy Calendar
    • Early Modern Texts
    • New York City Early Modern Events
    • NYC Early Modern Events
    • PhilEvents.org
    • PhilPapers.org
    • Project Vox
    • Society for Modern Philosophy
  • Categories

    • Authors and critics
    • Ergo discussions
    • Meta
    • Sentimental Sundays
    • Uncategorized
  • Meta

    • Register
    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: