Some Biography of Abelard
Peter Abelard is one of the most well-known philosophers of the Medieval period, but ironically, it is not because of his philosophy but his tragic biography. Born in 1079 to a family of knights in Brittany, France, he would come to spend much of his adult life as a student and teacher of philosophy and theology. But tragedy, following great bliss, found him in 1113. That year he became the master of the Notre Dame school in Paris, where he met the young and beautiful Héloise, the niece of one of the canons there. They became lovers and three years later she was pregnant. Upon this news they had a secret marriage, though she was hesitant, as she did not want his burgeoning career to be hindered by this. After her son was born, and the canon, her Uncle Fulbert found out, he was furious. In response, Fulbert had some hoodlums sent one night to castrate Abelard, and they were successful. Abelard and Héloise would never be together again, though they would both continue their lives in monasteries and a convent respectively, keeping in correspondence through letters.
The drama in his life would not stop there, but this was undoubtedly the most tragic to befall him. His work sometimes got him in trouble, but he should be remembered for his important contributions to the long conversation that is the history of philosophy in logic, scholasticism, theology, as well as some of his lesser-known work on moral philosophy.
Abelard’s Moral Philosophy
Peter Abelard’s philosophy on ethics is summarized in his book, Know Thyself, and it emphasizes non-consequentialism: intentions are what matter most for Abelard. And by intentions, he was focused on a person’s state of mind when judging others. Thus, one’s motives are more important than one’s actions. Even if a good intention leads to a bad act, that person can still be judged as morally worthy because the result does not matter in the moral deliberation here. A good intention is most important, and it is still considered good, per Abelard, even when not carried out into action. Similarly, a bad intention is still bad even if not carried out or is as bad as a bad action.
But in general, non-consequentialist moral philosophy is not without critiques. An immediate objection often raised is how one can know one had the intention they claimed to have. Moreover, it is not enough to just believe that one had a good intention. People may lie, people may be wrong. So, there are some relevant critiques that can be raised, as well as other areas within his moral philosophy that could be clarified. As one way to try to clarify what he means by the proper intentions, he does note that this must stem from one’s love of God. The story of Abraham is a classic example of this. Abraham was driven by his love of God and his willingness to be fully obedient to his demands, even if that meant murdering his son—which, as we know, fortunately was not the ultimate result. Thus, we have free will in our directing our intentions properly in such a manner. This free choice is what gives us moral responsibility and thus the ability to judge others—but, again as Abelard argues, this must be based on the intentions behind the choices we make. One of the most common answers given to the timeless quandary, “why be moral?” is that it leads to happiness. This Abelard would agree with, arguing that with properly directed intentions based on one’s love of God and duty to God would lead to human happiness in the afterlife. Moreover, because of this ultimate judgment of God, we can all rest assured that if a person is lying about their intentions, God will know. Whether this resolves that critique of not being able to prove a person’s intentions beyond their claims, then, depends on one’s position on religion.
Abelard: An Early Act-Non-Consequentialist
This position of Abelard’s puts him in the camp of being an early act-non-consequentialist. And despite his fervent Catholic beliefs, this does put him a bit at odds with the moral philosophy of the time that was more dominant: rule non-consequentialism. This moral philosophy took the form during that time (and is still very important for many Christians) of divine commands that must be followed. This is sometimes referred to as the Divine Command Theory, and a clear example of such a rule set is that found in the Ten Commandments.
But Abelard’s view was that there was simply more to the good intentions of human beings; it was more than just a set of rules, and hence his adaptation to act-non-consequentialism, essentially, so that each act could be judged on the merits behind it; on the intentions behind the action. Again, one’s motives are most important in moral deliberation and judgment. Contrary to what some other philosophers have argued, Abelard did not believe it was enough to be considered morally worthy to just follow one’s ethical duty; most importantly, one should be driven by love and obedience to God, not just do one’s duty for duty’s sake (and this is why it is important not to draw too many parallels to the later very important philosopher of non-consequentialism, Immanuel Kant). For Abelard, the intention is what allows us to follow our intuition for a doctrine on strict liability when a bad act results, because of how it may also shape future intentions. An example to consider here is when one is punished for an accident. The intention may not have been wrong; hence the notion that the bad act was an accident, and the punishment may not be as severe had the intention and the action both been malicious, but it can still be judged to result in some degree of punishment to help prevent continued occurrences in the future.
Critiques
There are still many additional objections that are raised against consequentialist moral philosophies that have played out in the history of philosophy that ensued. For example, how do we decide when good intentions conflict? Is there a hierarchy that would allow us to choose which to follow? Again, Abelard could respond that God is the ultimate judge so there is a standard, but again one’s convincing of this answer depends on one’s religious stance.
But a significant motivation behind Abelard’s project here is to address religious intolerance, in fact, because there are non-believers or believers of other faiths from his who he argues can also act from good intentions and thus be judged morally worthy. As can be imagined, this position did not always sit well with all, and along with the controversy over his relationship with Héloise, there was also disagreement over his theological and philosophical positions. But we can argue that his intentions here were good: he wanted to increase religious tolerance by focusing on the element of human nature that was good in how a human being, as a rational being with free choice, can make good decisions based on good intentions on their own, strictly speaking.
More broadly, the debate continues regarding the role of motives and actions in moral deliberation over which, and when, is more important to consider when making judgments.
Abelard in the History of Philosophy
Regardless of the critiques that have been raised, Abelard holds an important place in the long conversation that is the history of philosophy—and not just for his controversies or more well-known works in logic, but also for his moral philosophy. As aforementioned, the later philosopher Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century would make critically important contributions to developing further non-consequentialist moral philosophy, though he would turn the direction. Kant would argue for the importance of duty; that one’s moral worth stems from doing duty for duty’s sake. Thus, the proper intention is to always follow duty for duty’s sake, what he calls the “Good Will.” So while there are some similarities in focusing on human autonomy and agency, while not denying religion just trying to separate it in significant ways, there are also important differences here on Kant’s emphasis on duty. For Kant, the most morally worthy person is not someone who just follows one’s duty, but one is considered even better when that goes against their inclination. This may sound counter-intuitive, which in some ways it is indeed, but Kant’s idea here is to emphasize what we could call moral fortitude in following one’s duty.
Another later important moral philosopher, W.D. Ross, from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, would also try to expand upon non-consequentialism to continue to address some of the objections. For instance, some have raised the objection that Kant failed to fully address the issue of conflicting duties, which is what Ross tries to remedy in this philosophy on “Prima Facie Duties” by listing what they are and trying to formulate how we might weigh the good and the bad of each duty when considering what should motivate an action.
None of these philosophers, however, are without critique. There is no perfect moral philosophy. But that does not mean that we have not made progress, nonetheless, on philosophizing about morality. Abelard, along with those who came before and after him, are all part of this long dialogue that we continue to have in ethics.