CPA Run — Joseph Butler — Version 1.0
CPA Run — Joseph Butler — Version 1.0
Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling (Eastern Illinois University). Analysis and synthesis: Dave Kelly. Prose rendering: Claude (Anthropic). 2026.
Classical Presupposition Audit (CPA) v1.2. Instrument architecture: Dave Kelly. Corpus opened for this run: the CPA v1.2 instrument document, Core Stoicism.
Result in brief: four Aligned, two Partially Aligned (C2, C4), No Dissolution, and six divergences from the chain that the six criteria do not reach.
What Is the Classical Presupposition Audit?
The Classical Presupposition Audit identifies the presuppositions a named public figure must hold in order to argue as he does, and audits those presuppositions against the six classical commitments: substance dualism, libertarian free will, ethical intuitionism, foundationalism, correspondence theory of truth, and moral realism. The subject of analysis is the figure’s own argumentative record. The CPA issues findings about what that record requires at the level of embedded presupposition, and about what those presuppositions entail for an agent who takes up his framework as a governing account of his condition. It issues no findings about his inner life, his sincerity, or the correctness of his scholarship or policy.
Subject and Locus
Joseph Butler (1692–1752), preacher at the Rolls Chapel and later Bishop of Durham. The locus is his two published works: Fifteen Sermons (1726) with its Preface, and The Analogy of Religion (1736) with its two Dissertations.
Step 0 — Protocol Activation
- Corpus: the CPA v1.2 instrument document and Core Stoicism were opened in full. No other document on the CPA corpus list was opened. Governing propositions are taken from CPA v1.2 §IV.
- Butler’s text was not read through. Passages were extracted, in his own unmodernized wording, from the Preface and Sermons 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 11; from the Analogy, the Introduction, I.i, I.vi and II.viii; and from Dissertations I and II.
- How they were chosen. The passages were chosen from prior knowledge of where Butler says what, and the extraction confirmed their wording. The quotations are as returned and have not been checked against a printed text.
- Not reached: Sermons 4, 6, 9, 10 and 12–15, and the rest of the Analogy.
- Input fit: a named figure with a published argumentative record. The Political Application Constraint does not apply.
Self-Audit — Step 0:
- Is the corpus in view? Partly; the exception is recorded here and ruled under Rulings on This Run.
- Are the sources restricted to the figure’s own record? Yes, by extraction of chosen passages; recorded and ruled below.
- Has a prior conclusion been stated or implied? Two. Before the run it was said that the Sermons answer Hobbes, and a result like Reid’s was expected. Both are declared and set aside.
Self-Audit Complete. Proceed to Step 1.
Step 1 — Presupposition Profile
Stage A — Argumentative Record Summary. Eight presuppositions are load-bearing.
P1 — The self is one living agent, not its body. Our bodies are “no part of ourselves,” and our organs and limbs are “instruments, which the living persons ourselves make use of” (Analogy I.i). “Consciousness of personal identity presupposes, and therefore cannot constitute, personal identity” (Dissertation I). The move: his case for a future life, and for charging a man with what he did yesterday.
P3 — Conscience tells a plain man his duty directly. “Let any plain, honest man... ask himself, is this I am going about right, or is it wrong?” (Sermon 3). “In all common ordinary cases, we see intuitively at first view what is our duty” (Sermon 7).
P4 — The particular affections aim at their own objects, and benevolence is real. Self-love is a general desire of one’s own happiness, distinct from affections “to particular external objects” (Sermon 11). Hobbes’s account of pity is taken by name and rejected (Sermon 5, note). The move: the refutation of egoism.
P5 — Things are what they are, and moral distinctions are prior to will. “Every thing is what it is, and not another thing” (Preface). He believes in “the moral fitness and unfitness of actions, prior to all will whatever” (Analogy II.viii). We condemn falsehood and injustice “abstracted from all consideration” of which conduct produces more happiness (Dissertation II).
P6 — We are free in practice, and necessity misleads when applied to life. Universal necessity is “so absurd a supposition,” and we are “treated and dealt with, as if we were free, prior to all consideration whether we are or not” (Analogy I.vi). He argues “upon the principles of the Fatalists, which I do not believe” (II.viii).
P7 — He reasons from fact and from probable evidence. Morals may be treated from “the abstract relations of things” or from “a matter of fact, namely, what the particular nature of man is,” and he chiefly takes the second (Preface). “To us, probability is the very guide of life” (Analogy, Introduction).
P8 — Self-love is a rightful principle, the passions are given for good ends, and duty and interest coincide. “Reasonable self-love and conscience are the chief or superior principles” (Sermon 3). Duty and interest coincide “entirely and in every instance, if we take in the future and the whole,” under “a good and perfect administration of things” (Sermon 3).
Stage B — Domain Mapping. There are four domains: the person (P1), morals and human nature (P2–P5, P8), liberty (P6), and evidence and method (P7). Three tensions were mapped and joined.
- Necessity granted against necessity disbelieved. He argues on his opponents’ ground and says so. The two join.
- Direct moral knowledge against probability as guide. Probability governs matters of fact and expectation. He does not put conscience or moral fitness on a probable footing.
- Conscience supreme against the “cool hour.” In Sermon 11 he grants that we cannot justify a pursuit “till we are convinced that it will be for our happiness, or, at least, not contrary to it.” Read with charity this is a concession to the reader he is persuading, and P8’s coincidence joins it to P2. The concessive framing is from recall; the surrounding sentence was not extracted.
No Inconsistent finding is available. The expository exception is not invoked, because he argues throughout.
Self-Audit — Step 1:
- Are the presuppositions drawn from his own record? Yes, subject to the Step 0 exception.
- Was the load-bearing test applied? Yes; his theology, his reading of scripture and his case for revelation are excluded.
- Was charity applied? Yes, to all three tensions.
- Were domain variations mapped? Yes.
- Was the expository exception handled? Not invoked.
Self-Audit Complete. Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2 — Commitment Audit
C1 — Substance Dualism: Aligned. P1 states the governing proposition nearly in its own terms: the body is no part of ourselves. It is argued, not merely presupposed.
C2 — Libertarian Free Will: Partially Aligned. In substance he corresponds: he disbelieves fatalism, calls necessity absurd, and treats man as a moral agent whose ill desert “always supposes guilt.” The residual is that his argument is built to stand whether or not we are free. Origination is his stated belief, not what the argument requires, and he gives no account of it.
C3 — Ethical Intuitionism: Aligned. P3 and P5 hold that duty is seen directly, before any reckoning of consequences. He leaves open whether the faculty is “a sentiment of the understanding” or “a perception of the heart.” That does not touch the finding.
C4 — Foundationalism: Partially Aligned. He has a stopping point he does not treat as revisable: “Your obligation to obey this law, is its being the law of your nature” (Sermon 3). The residual is that he argues from the observed constitution of man and from probable evidence, and he sets aside the necessary moral fitness he says he believes. The foundation he holds is not the one he argues from.
C5 — Correspondence Theory of Truth: Aligned. “Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be: why then should we desire to be deceived?” (Sermon 7). No theory of truth is developed under that name.
C6 — Moral Realism: Aligned. Moral fitness is “prior to all will whatever” and determines the divine conduct as truth determines the divine judgment.
Recorded, not tested. P4 and P8 diverge from the chain at points the six criteria do not test.
- Value content. We were “intended to take care of our own life, and health, and private good” (Sermon 1), and prudence is a virtue (Dissertation II). This is against Th10 and line 12. His standard of virtue, “justice, veracity, and regard to common good,” does match the appropriate objects of aim in Th26.
- Happiness. It “consists only in the enjoyment of those objects, which are by nature suited to our several particular appetites” (Sermon 11). That makes it depend on externals, against lines 4 and 14.
- The passions. They are original affections implanted in us, not judgments. Settled resentment at injury is “not only innocent, but a generous movement of mind” (Sermon 8). This is against Th7.
- The Stoics by name. “The apathy the Stoics talk of... supposes, or is accompanied with somewhat amiss in the moral character” (Sermon 5).
- Reason as motive. “Reason alone, whatever anyone may wish, is not, in reality, a sufficient motive of virtue in such a creature as man” (Sermon 5). This is against Th27 and line 29.
- The guarantee. Duty and interest coincide through a good administration and a future state. In Core Stoicism the guarantee follows from judging correctly, and Th20 and Th21 are not what it rests on.
One point of agreement. “Every man hath a general desire of his own happiness” (Sermon 11), which is Th1.
Self-Audit — Step 2:
- Were all presuppositions audited? Yes.
- Was Non-Operative used to avoid a Contrary? No.
- Were findings distributed for balance? No. The two residuals are positions he states, not silences.
- Were findings issued outside the corpus’s domain? None on revelation or theology.
- Would the same findings issue for an unsympathetic figure? Yes.
- Was an Inconsistent finding available? Considered at C2 and C4, and resolved by joining.
Self-Audit Complete. Proceed to Step 3.
Step 3 — Dissolution Finding
C1 is Aligned and C2 is Partially Aligned. Neither is Contrary.
Finding: No Dissolution.
The framework keeps a self that is not its body, and it treats that self as an accountable agent. It does not supply an account of how he originates his choices. This is a finding about the framework, not about Butler’s inner life, and it is not a political verdict.
Self-Audit — Step 3:
- Does the finding follow mechanically from Step 2? Yes.
- Does the Partial Dissolution sub-case apply? Not applicable; neither commitment is Contrary.
- Is it stated of the framework? Yes.
- Is it philosophical, not political? Yes.
- Was any Inconsistent finding on C1 or C2 present? No.
Self-Audit Complete. Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4 — Summary Finding
Part A — Commitment Pattern.
- C1 — Substance Dualism: Aligned
- C2 — Libertarian Free Will: Partially Aligned
- C3 — Ethical Intuitionism: Aligned
- C4 — Foundationalism: Partially Aligned
- C5 — Correspondence Theory of Truth: Aligned
- C6 — Moral Realism: Aligned
Overall pattern: 4 Aligned, 2 Partially Aligned, 0 Contrary, 0 Inconsistent, 0 Non-Operative. The strongest alignment is C1. The deepest divergence is not at commitment level. It lies in P8 and P4, where he defends the passions against the Stoics by name.
Part B — Dissolution Finding. No Dissolution.
Part C — Agent-Level Implication. An agent who adopts Butler’s framework takes himself to be one continuing self and not his body, answerable to a conscience that has authority over every impulse, and able to see his duty directly. He holds that right and wrong are fixed before anyone’s will. He also takes up these further things:
- his private good and health are real goods;
- his happiness lies in satisfying his particular affections;
- pity and resentment are proper parts of him;
- reason alone will not move him to virtue;
- providence makes duty pay.
He is told he is free in practice, and is not told how. He holds four commitments whole and two in part, and he does not hold the chain.
Corpus Boundary Declaration. No finding is issued on revelation, on the case for a future life, on his theology, on whether his reply to Hobbes succeeds, or on his historical influence.
Self-Audit — Step 4:
- Does the summary follow from the preceding steps? Yes.
- Is it free of political verdict? Yes.
- Is it addressed to the adopting agent? Yes.
- Is the boundary declared? Yes.
- Is the summary self-contained? Yes.
Self-Audit Complete. CPA run complete.
Rulings on This Run
- The Step 0 source exception stands: chosen passages were extracted from the Preface, seven sermons and six sections of the Analogy. Nothing was read through, and eight sermons were not reached.
- The Step 0 corpus exception stands: only the CPA v1.2 instrument document and Core Stoicism were opened.
- C2 is Partially Aligned, because the argument is built to stand without freedom. His stated disbelief in fatalism does not make it Aligned.
- C4 is Partially Aligned, because he argues from fact and probability. Conscience as a fixed stopping point does not make it Aligned.
- The “cool hour” passage is read as a concession. That reading rests on recall.
- Sterling sides with Butler against Hobbes on 5 June 2008 and 11 May 2011, taking Butler’s point that egoism is an empirical claim with no evidence for it. On 17 July 2018 Sterling gives as the Stoic view that reason alone can move a man to act. Butler’s Sermon 5 denies that of “such a creature as man.” Sterling borrows Butler’s argument, not that position, and no finding here is in conflict with it. The posts are given in Sterling on Hobbes: The Primary-Source Record.
Sources
- Butler, Fifteen Sermons, Project Canterbury: Preface; Sermons 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 11.
- Butler, The Analogy of Religion, Christian Classics Ethereal Library: Introduction; I.i; I.vi; II.viii; Dissertation I; Dissertation II.
Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling (Eastern Illinois University). Analysis and synthesis: Dave Kelly. Prose rendering: Claude (Anthropic). 2026.