Human beings have lived by very different conceptions of the good life. In this book, Stuart Hampshire argues that no individual and no modern society can avoid conflicts between incompatible moral interests. Philosophers have tried in the past to find some underlying moral idea of justice which could resolve these conflicts and would be valid for any society. Hampshire claims that there can be no such thing. States can be held together, and war between them avoided, only by respect for the political process itself, and it is in these terms that justice must be defined.

The book closely examines the critical relationship between morality and justice, paying particular attention to Hume's moral subjectivism (which Hampshire disputes) and proposing a reply to Machiavelli's claim that the realities of politics inevitably oblige leaders to choose between unavoidable evils.

Most academic and moral philosophy, Hampshire argues, has been a fairy tale, representing ideals of private innocence rather than the realities of public experience. Conflicts between incompatible moral interests are as unavoidable in social and international arenas as they are in the lives of individuals. Philosophers, politicians, and theologians have all looked for an underlying moral consensus that will be valid for any just society. But the diversity of the human species and important differences in how various cultures define the good life militate against the formation of any such consensus. Ultimately, conflicts can be mediated only by respect for procedural justice.

Hampshire believes that themes of moral philosophy come from the writer's own experience, and he has given a brief but compelling account of his own life to help the reader understand the sources of his philosophy. Combining intellectual rigor with imaginative power, in Innocence and Experience Stuart Hampshire vividly illuminates the tensions between justice and other sources of value in society and in the life of the individual.

America believes in individualism—but what is individualism? This question leads into unexpected areas of life and thought. It touches upon almost every intellectual discipline concerned with human life. Any answer, to be taken seriously, must recognize this complexity. A broad understanding of the meaning of individualism can be reached only through the insight of many workers in many different fields.

This volume brings together seven of the United States' most distinguished scholars, representing the fields of anthropology, economics, government, history, literature, and philosophy. The trend of their thinking can be suggested by a few excerpts from their essays:

• "An individual divorced from a cultural milieu would not be a human being; he would be a mere hominid."—Leslie A. White

• "The trouble is that 'individual' is a stop-thought word. It numbs the mind, so that once it has been uttered, inquiry stops."—Clarence E. Ayres

• "Not even an individual's perfections are his alone; like his imperfections, they are group-made."— Paul A. Samuelson

• "The twentieth century has witnessed the emergence of a new kind of American individualism, the individualism of nonconformity, which actually challenges the compulsive democracy of the Lockean individualism by which the nation has centrally and historically lived."—Louis Hartz

• "The individualism of the American frontier was an individualism of personal self-reliance and of hardihood and stamina rather than an individualism of intellectual independence and personal self-expression."—David M. Potter

• "The present conditions in which the self must be preserved are radically different from those of a generation, even a decade ago. . . . The dogmatics of present self-assertion are defined and pursued in an existential circumstance."—Frederick J. Hoffman

• "Individuality means creativity, and 'laws of creativity,' other than statistical ones, are, I hold, a contradiction in terms."—Charles Hartshorne

In seventeenth-century England, intellectuals of all kinds discovered their idealized self-image in the Adam who investigated, named, and commanded the creatures. Reinvented as the agent of innocent curiosity, Adam was central to the project of redefining contemplation as a productive and public labor. It was by identifying with creation’s original sovereign, Joanna Picciotto argues, that early modern scientists, poets, and pamphleteers claimed authority as both workers and “public persons.”

Tracking an ethos of imitatio Adami across a wide range of disciplines and devotions, Picciotto reveals how practical efforts to restore paradise generated the modern concept of objectivity and a novel understanding of the author as an agent of estranged perception. Finally, she shows how the effort to restore Adam as a working collective transformed the corpus mysticum into a public. Offering new readings of key texts by writers such as Robert Hooke, John Locke, Andrew Marvell, Joseph Addison, and most of all John Milton, Labors of Innocence in Early Modern England advances a new account of the relationship between Protestantism, experimental science, the public sphere, and intellectual labor itself.