1. The system thus far has explained the universal approval or blame of the observance or transgression of the laws of nature and of nations, on the basis of the general interests of society. The author claims that the only difficulty the reader might find with the system is that the explanation is not sufficient. To remove this doubt, he proposes to examine another set of duties, the duties of modesty and chastity, which were held in those days to apply to women (“the fair sex”). The author is convinced that these duties can be explained by the general interests of society, which would reinforce his claim that the duties of justice are explained by them.

2. Some philosophers vehemently attack the requirement of exterior modesty in the “expressions, and dress, and behavior” of women, on the grounds that they it has no foundation in nature. The author takes this as obvious and turns his attention on the way in which “such notions arise from education, from voluntary conventions of men, and from the interest of society.”

3. The author observes that the long period of dependency of infants on their parents requires that both the mother and father take an interest in their children over a long period of time. To induce men to constrict their activities in this way, so that the will “undergo chearfully all the fatigues and expences, to which it subjects them,” it is necessary that they believe that the children are their own, so that their love and tenderness is “not directed to a wrong object.” The author observes further that due to anatomical considerations, it is hard to tell whether the child is really that of the father (though there is no question about the mother). “From this trivial and anatomical observation is deriv’d that vast difference betwixt the education and duties of the two sexes.”

4. The author next recounts an a priori argument by a hypothetical philosopher, whose conclusion is that chastity must be considered a virtue. As noted in the last paragraph, it is vital that the father be secure in the knowledge that the child is his own. This security is not best obtained by the severe punishment of infidelity, as this requires legal proof that is not easy to obtain. Women have a strong temptation to infidelity (according to the argument), and this is only counter-balanced by “the punishment of bad fame or reputation.” This punishment can be inflicted on the basis of weak evidence, i.e, “surmizes, and conjectures, and proofs” that would be thrown out in courts. So there must be attached to infidelity a shame that is greater than the shame that comes from committing an injustice. Correspondingly, to help satisfy the end of security, chastity (i.e., marital fidelity) is to be praised.

5. But, to continue the reasonings of our “speculative philosopher,” there is a problem in that human action is largely governed by immediate, rather than remote, motives. Present temptation will overcome the knowledge of the punishment of shame in this case, because it is “the strongest imaginable.” Moreover, the woman calculates that she has “certain means” that will allow here to avoid the punishment of shame. If the immediate motive of temptation is to be overcome, there must be, in addition to the punishment of shame, “some preceding backwardness or dread” that will affect the woman at the first approach of temptation and give her “a repugnance to all expressions, and postures, and liberties, that have an immediate relation to that enjoyment.”

6. The author finds these speculations to be merely “chimerical” to anyone with a perfect knowledge of human nature, being based more on wishful thinking than on a realistic appraisal of human behavior. First, people do not regard infidelity to be worse than any other injustice, because of the strength of the temptation. And second, any “backwardness” that might be induced in women is overwhelmed by the strong propensity to the pleasure of sex, which is “absolutely necessary in the end to comply with, for the support of the species.”

7. The author then points out that these speculative difficulties are not relevant to the actual moral judgments we make. So anyone “with an interest in the fidelity of women, naturally disapprove of their infidelity, and all the approaches to it.” Those who have no such interest just go along with those who do, and moreover are concerned, due to sympathy, with the general interests of society. The real basis of these attitudes is “education” and “general rules,” which are inculcated in the minds of women from birth. The author then goes on to try to confirm his view that general rules are at work. The basic feature of general rules is that they apply to groups of people without exception. In the present case, the only people to which the original basis for chastity applies are women of child-bearing age. But there is an extension of the rule of chastity to all women, even those who can no longer bear children. On the other hand, the rule is not extended to males, since “men have undoubtedly an implicit notion, that all these ideas of modesty and decency have a regard to generation.” So they do not impose the same laws of chastity “with the same force” to themselves, since (as noted in paragraph 3) due to anatomy there is no question about who the mother is. “The exception is there obvious and extensive, and founded on a remarkable difference, which produces a clear separation and disjunction of ideas.” There is no such remarkable exception in the case of women who cannot bear children, and so the general rule is extended to them, even if it is not in the interest of society to do so.

8. The virtue of courage, which is the principal point of honor among men, is likewise based on an artificial reason. The author will later (Book 3, Part 3, Sections 2 and 3) show how it has, as well as the virtue of chastity, “some foundation in nature.”

9. The author concludes the section by making an observation about chastity in men. This is considered a virtue as well, but the interest for society is weaker. All that is ruled out is that men “shou’d have an entire liberty of indulging their appetites in venereal enjoyment.” The relative weakness of the obligation of chastity in men versus that in women is compared to the relative weakness of obligations of nations under international law versus the strength of obligations of individuals under morality. We are more indulgent of transgressions by a prince in breaking a treaty than of an ordinary person who breaks a contract (see Section 11).

[ Previous Section | Next Section | Treatise Contents | Text of the Treatise ]