Jonathan Suckow

History of Philosophy II
Christina Van Dyke
30 April 2023
Candy Mom: Ethical Considerations
In this paper, I will discuss what Catherine of Siena, Spinoza and Hume would advise a

child named Junior, whose mom is about to throw away the candies that he has collected over

Halloween. Catherine of Sienna will advise Junior to see the situation as an opportunity to grow

in virtue by having a loving and charitable conversation with his mother. Spinoza would advise

Junior to align himself with his nature by understanding his attachment to the candies and not

letting his passions determine his actions. Hume, on the other hand, may not provide specific

guidance on how Junior should act, but would rather tell him how to morally judge his mother’s

actions based on the approval or disapproval of an average spectator. I will argue that Junior

should follow Spinoza’s advice because it will set him free from his passions.

Catherine of Siena would advise Junior to approach the situation as an opportunity to grow

in virtue by exercising charity towards his mom. Indeed, for Catherine of Siena "every virtue of

yours and every vice is put into action by means of your neighbors" (Siena 33). This means that

interacting with those around us is essential to growing in virtue or falling into vice. Furthermore,

Siena argues that God has "distributed [virtues and graces]" to us (Siena 38), but has not bestowed

the same virtues to everyone such that we are dependent on our neighbors to become more

virtuous. They are the source of the virtues we lack and, through God, dispense to us "the graces

and gifts" (Siena 38). Thus, practicing mutual charity is a necessity because only through charity

“can we accept the virtues that our neighbors offer to us” (Siena 38). So, Siena would advise Junior

to exercise charity towards his mom because she might offer him virtues that he could take up.
Indeed, Siena might recommend talking to his mom with love and charity about why he thinks

throwing away the candy is wrong. As a result, Junior might realize that he and his mom possess

different virtues; she possesses the virtue of temperance, while he possesses the virtue of justice.

At best this would lead to both to learn from each other’s virtues. However, even if Callard action

is vicious, Siena would still recommend the same course of action. Indeed, it would still be an

opportunity for Junior to strengthen his own virtues. Siena argues that our humility is tested by the

proud, our patience is tested when we are insulted, and our justice is tested by the unjust (Siena

38). She also claims that when “you return good for evil, you not only prove your own virtue, but

often you send out coals ablaze with charity that will melt hatred and bitterness” and turn our

neighbors’ “hatred to benevolence” (Siena 39). As such, even if Callard’s act is vicious, Siena’s

advice would be to handle the situation with goodness (i.e love, patience, charity) because it will

refine one’s own virtues while stamping out hatred and bitterness (i.e vices). Siena might even say

that by handling the situation with goodness, Junior might make Callard reconsider her decision

because of charity’s power in reducing vices (assuming Callard’s act is vicious).

Spinoza would advise Junior to align himself with his nature (i.e to be virtuous) which

involves exercising rational activity (i.e not letting his passions determine his actions). To do so,

Spinoza will first tell Junior to employ his rational capacities to understand the nature of

God/nature. Indeed, Spinoza holds that the greatest virtue of our minds is “to understand - that is,

to know - God”; we can only become completely virtuous when we come to fully know God

(Spinoza 436). In knowing God, Junior will come to understand himself as “a part of nature”; if

he understands God, then he will understand himself because he is a modality of God (Spinoza

433). Understanding his own nature, Spinoza would argue, is necessary to leading a virtuous life

because without that knowledge, Junior would not know how to “act according to the laws of one’s
own nature,” which Spinoza defines as acting “absolutely in obedience to virtue” (Spinoza 436).

Acting in accord with nature, Spinoza would argue, consists in rational activity as opposed to

acting from passion (which is passive) (416). Rational activity is defined by “man’s power” which

he calls action, while passions are defined by “the power of things external to us” (443). As such,

Spinoza would advise Junior to handle the situation with moderation and self-control by not letting

his passions take control of him (i.e by being passive rather than active/self-caused). Indeed, “to

the extent that people are subject to passions, they cannot be said to agree naturally” and “only

insofar as people live in obedience to reason do they always necessarily agree in nature” (437).

That is, Spinoza would advise him to not let anger, a sentiment for revenge or frustration determine

his next move because acting on these passions will prevent him from acting virtuously and

aligning himself with his nature. More concretely, acting rationally will involve rationalizing his

relation to the candies and understanding his mom’s motives. Understanding the causes behind

these two will lead him to realize that he has an irrational attachment to the candy which the mom

is not responsible for, and that once he lets go of his attachment to the candies which determine

him (external cause), he will be more free and in accord with nature.

Hume, unlike Spinoza or Catherine of Siena would probably not advise Junior to handle

the situation in any particular way. This is because Hume aims not to develop a normative theory

of morality but rather to understand the grounds of moral judgement. As he says, the purpose of

his An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals is “to discover the true origin of morals”

(Hume 820). So, instead of telling Junior what to do, Hume might encourage him to look into what

led him to make a negative moral judgment about his mother’s actions. For Hume, moral

judgments have two components. First, Hume talks about how “in moral decisions, all the

circumstances and relations must be previously known; and the mind, from the contemplation of
the whole, feels [...] approbation or blame” (Hume 856). Only once we know all the details of a

situation can we appropriately fix a judgment. Second, Hume explains that beauty “results from

the whole” and that only when that whole is “presented to an intelligent mind susceptible to those

finer sensations” can beauty arise (Hume 857). In that particular passage, Hume specifically

discusses the concept of natural beauty. However, the principles he elucidates can also be applied

to moral beauty, as he eloquently posits that moral beauty 'bears so near a resemblance' to natural

beauty" (Hume 857). Therefore, it can be inferred that both natural and moral beauty originate

from perceiving the entirety of an object or situation in our minds, as long as our minds are attuned.

Since Junior is probably too young to have an attuned mind to determine whether his mom’s

actions are blameworthy or not, Hume would advise him to ask the average spectator who knows

the details of the situation. As Hume says, virtue is defined “to be whatever mental action or quality

gives to a spectator a pleasing sentiment of approbation and vice the contrary” (856). Thus, Junior

should determine whether his mom’s actions are virtuous or vicious based on the approbation or

disapprobation that an average spectator has. However, this determination for Hume is merely a

product of society rather than a judgement grounded in a moral property of the universe.

I think Spinoza's advice to Junior to rationalize his relation to the candies can be seen as a

pathway to achieving true freedom and autonomy, and as such is the advice he should take. By

developing self-awareness and self-control, Junior can gain a deeper understanding of his desires

and motivations, and learn to distinguish between those that are truly his own and those that are

imposed upon him by external forces. This process allows Junior to resist external pressures and

make informed decisions about his life, ultimately leading to personal growth and empowerment.