Full text of "Lectures on theoretical ethics: notes taken in the class-room of Dr. Hamilton"

See other formats

P 435
331

Dniversit^ Library,
OCT 29 1 89b

• PRINCETON, N. J.

-..J

&tbt*arn trf

-|l6ub X?"wmc|

•

LECTURES

HEORETICKL bXHICS,

NOTES

TAKEN IN THE CLASS-ROOM OF

Dr.. Hamilton.

•A

TRRNTON, N. J.:
MacCbp.llihh .t Quiai.r.Y, Printers, 16 Bast State Stbeet.

1883.

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from

Princeton Theological Seminary Library

http://www.archive.org/details/lecturesontheoreOOhami

LECTURES

1 HEORETICUL MHICS,

NOTES

TAKEN IN THE CLASS-ROOM OF

Dr. Himilton.

-TilENTON, N. J.:
MacCbellish & QtJioLET, Book and Job Pbintebr, 1G East State Stbbst.

1883.

THEORETICAL ETHICS.

LECTURE I.

THEORETICAL ETHICS is a difficult branch and can be
mastered only by attentive study. Practical ethics per-
tains to those moral laws which are very commonly known
and appreciated by all mankind. But great difficulties
arise when we attempt to give reasons for these common
modes of action, because we enter a metaphysical realm.
We must go out of ourselves and look at our own lives and
actions, making two beings, as it were, of one. In Ethics,
man, as the creature and doer of duty, looks at himself in
the light of God's law. He becomes, as it were, three
beings: (1) The moral agent; (2) moral agent, looking at him-
self; (3) a philosophical agent, looking from above over all.
While it is difficult, we can make some progress and can dis-
prove Sidney Smith's saying: "All metaphysical studies are
absurd, and its students are like men who try to look down
their own throat by aid of a lighted candle."

I. DEFINITION OF THE SCIENCE NECESSARY.

[1) Wcmust sjjecialize field of study. Aristotle, in his Nico-
machean Ethics, made his sphere too large. Aristotle said
the end of practical wisdom was happiness. The perfect
man chose a meayi in everything and avoided extremes.
This is too general, and shows that among the Greeks the
moral sense was not very strong.

(^) For avoidance of obscurity and confusion. The scholastic
theologians made a mistake in not separating ethics from
theology. Some Scotch writers go over the whole of human
nature, all of which is indeed concerned in duty, but in

101240

reading their works we find great difficulty to know in what
way some of their discussions bear upon Ethics.

[3) For rejection of error. Any system which does not in-
clude and account for all Ethical phenomena is incomplete
and useless.

II. VARIOUSLY DEFINED.

Ethics according to —

Birks,=;S'cfewce of Ideal Humanity.
Waylaiid,^/Sc^e?i<?e of Moral Law.
Bascoraj^^Sczmce of Duty.
Whewell,=^czenee of Rights and Obligations.
Calderwood,=^c?ence of Moral Actions., of Moral
Natures and Moral Relations.

III. HAMILTON— SCIENCE OF MORAL LIFE.

(/) Science. Exact, complete and systematic knowledge
and laws of any department of existence. Science is not any
more true than ordinary knowledge.

{2) Life. This word has not a distinct meaning in modern
languages. We might define : Life, the possession and ex-
ercise of a certain kind or class of powers. We divide life
into — [a) Organic and (6) Psychical. The Organic again
divides into animal and vegetable life. Thus we have three
ideas under the one word.

The Greeks had three words : /S'lo^-, fitoTf)^ : Latin, vita, life
of man, his rational life. Zojv] : applied to animal life, cor-
poreal. <puio {(poTov., plant,) life of a plant. Latin, fui; Eng-
lish, to be.

These three kinds of life were granted three words
in ancient languages, but not in our English tongue.
There is a community of nature between vegetable and
animal life, but psychical life differs from both.

[S) Moral Life. — Man's life as rational, may be considered
in different ways. We speak of his "individual," "social,"
" political," " domestic" and " religious " life.

Moral life. — The rational life of man, so far as it results
from the consideration and perception of the distinction
between right and wrong.

IV. REAL DEFINITION.

(1) This is a real definition and not a nominal one, and in
this lies its importance and value. The distinction between
"real " and "nominal " comes from the Schoolmen, and has
been noticed by many.

Whaieley. "W. says, the '^nominal" explains the idea of
a thing and the ^^real" explains the thing itself. Answer:
But we explain a thing and also the idea; we cannot
separate "real" and "nominal" in this way.

Locke explained "real" and "nominal" in connection
with his two essences. "Nominal" essence, that of which
we have a conception; the name of a thing expresses its
nominal essence. But he says in all substantial essences
there are many things about which we know nothing. In
a " nominal" definition we have only a part of the essence,
while in a " real " we have the whole thing as known to
the mind of God.

Mill. Every true definition, whatever it may be of, may
be viewed in two lights —

1. Analytic, explanatory, giving us clear understanding
of some word or idea, nominal.

2. Along with the nominal there may be other defini-
tions which not only explain the nature of a thing, but make
us feel that there are real things, to which the "nominal"
definitions refer.

{2) Moral beings and their lives are real things.

[3] Tests for results. — Our definition being "real," it will
furnish such a te^t. Any theory which lands us in doctrines
without any morals is false. Every investigation must
square its results with the teachings of common sense.

6
V. VALUE OF ETHICAL STUDIES.

(1) They exhibit to us the jiigh£stJorra^of_life and being.
(2) Call for the keenest exercise of. mtellect. (3) Aid to a
right determination of one's personal life. (4) Prepare for a
satisfactory "uiiderstanding of the most important sciences.
Ethics, the highest plane of purely human thought.

LECTURE II.

Problems, Methods, Theories.

L Theoretical Ethics, philosophy of moral life.
II. Method Necessary.
III. Three General Theories.

(1) Egoism. (2) Utilitarianism. (3) Intuitionism.

I. Being the philosophy of moral life, it treats four classes of
phenomena: these pertain to —

1. (a) Moral conceptions and the thinkings of men.

(6) The animus of the soul in seeking the right and doing^
it, and~a voiding the wrong. ^ The animus, the desires of the
soul in aiming at moral ends, must be included in this
science.

{d) Man's feelings, in view of the moral conduct of him-
self and others'7^ feelings oj apm-obation and disa^orob^jon
towards ourselves and others.

2. Moral conceptions to be studied first and most :

(a) The animus is practically first. Herein lies virtue and
vice. But conceptions are philosophically first.

(6) They explain the rest. The other parts thus become
plain and easy. The animus will always be explained by

the aim. The actions of moral life are those with which the
intellect of man is most constantly concerned.

(c) The ])rincipal controversies concern the nature of the
moral law. This is not the divine law, but the law written
on the heart of man.

{d) Tivo fundamental questions :

(a) What is the essential matter of the law? Of what
substance can moral Tightness be predicated ?

(i3) What is that moral rightness, and what makes it obliga-
tory upon moral beings ? What are the peculiar character-
istics of this Tightness and " obligatoriness " ?

II. METHOD NECESSARY.

1. {a) Even in the simplest undertaking in life.

(b) This is especially true when one part of the work con-
ditions those which follow, when the work is progressive.

2. Two methods in philosophy — analytic and synthetic.

(a) Only prominent parts of philosophical method in
general are indicated by these terms.

(b) Not to be confounded with analysis and synthesis.
These two are absolutely inseparable in all philosophical pro-
gress.

(c) Analytic method starts with analysis and not synthesis.
It begins witli individual facts and. ascends to specific, gen-
eric and snprcinam genus when possible.

Synthetic takes ready-made principles and deduces im-
portant truths.

"^■((7) Only those sciences admit of the Synthetic method
whose principles have been fully and clearly ascertained —
such as mathematics. Those sciences embraced under law
may be synthetic also.

3. Which method in Ethics ?
Two departments here:

(a) Practical ; here we may use the syntheticjosiQi\io^. We
may assume some things which Common Sense approves.
Hence synthesis may he used in practical ethics. We can-
not theoretically construct a whole system of ethics, we must
consult human needs, natures, and experience.

(h) Theoretical ; here we must adhere rigidily to the analytic
method or bring confusion into our system.

III. THREE GENERAL THEORIES.

1. Egoism or Selfism.

Hef*5'TtI^moral life arises from the pursuit of one's own
happiness, and we use the term Hedonists, although this may
contain a slander.

(a) Epicurus did not make pleasure the supreme end of
life ; he had a higher end, viz,, happiness.

(6) Paley. Do good to men. Deny present gratification
for our future and everlasting happiness.

2. Utilitarianism.

{a) Spencer contrasts Egoism and Altruism. There is
or might be a reason according to which it may be our duty
to devote ourselves wholly to the good and happiness of
others. This doctrine never existed except in his philosophy.

(6) Aristotle makes the chief good happiness, and we obtain
this by choosing a "golden mean" in all things.

(d) Jonathan Edwards. The great, the universal duty —
Love of Being as such, greatest love to God as greatest
being, and special love to virtuous beings.

(e) These systems are unsatisfactory. We cannot identify
the right with what is useful.

3. Intuitionism. — No conscious process in the perception
of moi^arTfutb.

(a) A-priori^, truths are eternal and immediately perceived
by the mind.

(6) Empirical — so called because it does not attempt to
analyze the well-known specifi.c laws of morality. iLappeala

imraediately to man's experience and ^practical judgment.
The Older Scotch School.

(c) Anal.yticah This accepts the teachings of practical
reason and seeks Jo draw from them a deep and broad phil-
osophy which may comprehend and explain them all.

Dr. McCosh invites us to this last method, for he teaches
that " the intuitions of the mind " should be inductively
examined.

LECTURE III.

Man's Motive Constitution.

First — Man's Natural Constitution.
Second — Man's Moral Faculty.

I. Man's natural constitution apart from morality.

{1) Man seeks many ends, not one end under many forms.
Butler says selfishness is the suicide of self-love. Self-love
seeks happiness of man, but selfishness defeats its own ends.

[2) We naturally and directly seek gratification for others as
well as for ourselves — even though great selfishness exists in
the world. Man is not wholly a selfish being. Sympathy
is a natural result. Illustration : Story of Robert and
Maggie.

(3) The ends of desire or motivity always include the realization
of some psychical result. Every human desire aims at some
psychical result, some kind of spiritual gratification. Even
Instinct seeks such ends. The instinct of an animal desires
some useful result without the knowledge of the animal.
Bees build hexagonal cells because of some pleasure in doing
so. A hen on eggs has a natural gratification but no brood
of chickens, before her mind. When we rise from instincts
to appetites we seek some psychical result, e. y., removal of
hunger. When we rise from appetites to propensities we

must always have a personal experience in view. He who
seeks for power would hold the reins.

{4) Reason constructs ends on the basis of other ends which
present themselves without rational thought.

What Butler says of self-interest is true of all the rational
motivities of man. Man is capable of many kinds of grati-
fication. The benevolent man seeks to relieve suffering and
advance the best interests of the human race. The structure
of man's nature is like the classes in society, the upper rest
upon the lower.

[5) Reason modifies the other motivities of man by conforming
them to her own ends, and assigns them grades among each other.
Reason without giving morality to ends may rationalize them,
and this is the great difference between brute and human
affections.

Reason has ends of her own, takes the lead, and assigns to
all other motivities their proper places.

II. ANALOGICAL CONJECTURES.

The Moral faculty.

(-?) This may have peculiar ends of its own, differing from
all others. If self-love and benevolence each has its own
end, the moral faculty may have its own end also.

[S) It may construct these after and upon other ends — other
and lower ends. This would make the moral faculty analo-
gous to common reason.

(3) It may have psychical results as essential parts of its
ends.

(4) It may regulate life by requiring conformity and sub-
ordination to itself in seeking its own ends. In som i systems
the conscience is wholly regulative. But it has ends of its
own, and also regulates.

(5) It may, intellectually speaking, be a very high faculty,
and that showing the greatest practical wisdom. Natural
reason is comprehensive, looking into the future and organ-
izing the ends ot man. So moral reason may=wisdom, the
highest form of which is found in God alone.

11
LECTURE IV.

Ends or Final Cause.

How is an end a cauge ?

Only as the conception of the end may bej^n.nRRt.ivp.. An
end, the last of a thing; but here we speak of that which
exists at or before the very beginning of a work and con-
tinues throughout the whole course. There may be a final
cause, as in the case of ten billiard balls lying in contact —
number nine gives final cause of motion to ball number ten.
But we do not mean this.

We speak of a cause, which is a result and of a consum-
mation which is a cause. One of these must be figurative,
and since the cause cannot be, the end must. The same thing
is set forth in these terms in two lights. We shall consider
it in each light :

I. ^nal cause is the more literal expression.

[1) These causes may literally exist, and are then the motive
conceptions of the mind — those which lead us to ifntifiF "P""
anyplan of work or^joceclure. A " final cause entered
the heart of Columbus and carried him to the end of his
work.

{2) They do not in themselves have any efficiency, and are
to be distinguished from efficient causes. This distinction
is made and unmade by Aristotle. He illustrated his four
causes by a statue : Material, the marble; formal, the beau-
tiful form; efficient, mental skill and muscular aptness of the
sculptor; fiiml, desire of fame and production of an object of
beauty. This beginning must be approved, but when
Aristotle goes on to apply his doctrine of causes, he becomes
confused, and instead of four different causes he gives us
four which all partake more or less of the " efficient cause."
The material and formal have a tendency, naturally, to unite;
back of these is the efficient, which keeps these moving.
Final cause is back of all these, and gives useful ends to all
the dilferent operations of the universe.

(3) In what sense may we speak of final causes and their
causality ? The modern doctrine of cause is not simply that
of an efficient agency, but of that agent considered as com-
bined and united with all the diff'erejb conditions which are
necessary to the actual production of the phenomenon.
Illustration: Cannon discharging solid shot. We may say
that the motion of the ball lay in the explosive nature of the
powder, but we would have to take in also the structure of
the gun, position of ball, powder to be ignited, etc. We
often speak of many things as causes, besides that thing in
which the efficiency resides.

Then a condition may be spoken of as a cause, because
necessary to the final result : e. g., a boiler explodes because
there is a lack of water in it; here the want of water is only
the condition necessary to the overheating of the boiler; and
in this way we speak of Final causes.

II. We often speak of an object as an end, and not of the con-
ception of the object as a final cause. We speak of cause as
of something in the mind, but of end as of something which
attracts mind to it.

{!) An end does not literally exist. It is an ideal object,
not real, but to be realized. Illustration: Napoleon's object
was to be Emperor of France and Dictator of Europe. But
after he became Emperor this was an end no longer.

Moral law=a collection of practical ideas which the human
mind employs and uses for its own end;*.

All these ideas of imagination are constructed by the
mind from elements obtained from the cognition of things
in the actual world, and they look to a consummation in
man's present or future life.

{2) Ends are objects characterized ab extra, yet each also
as having a nature of its own. When one thing corres-
ponds to another that thing must correspond to the first.

Story — Sorely smitten, soft young man in Hanover College.

[3) Strictly, every end is an ultimate object of pursuit. The
very definition involves this. Some distinguish between

ultimate and proximate ends, but tliis is of no radical im-
portance. Ethics mentions proximate or mediate ends only
to say they are not the objects of its discussions, save as con-
nected with true or ultimate ends.

LECTURE V.

Moral Actions.

Actions constitute an important part of moral life. The
moral law is a collection of practical conceptions which man
is bound to realize in action.

I. Actions in general are of the following varieties : For
the human mind has power to expand the conceptions em-
bodied in words. " Man is mortal," includes not only man,
but every woman, child, etc. Human language tends
towards the expansion or contraction of our ideas. -, '-y

(1) A mere e.rcrcisc of power. This is the simplest and most ^^'"' ^^ ''•'^
radical idea — e. g., the boy runs, wind blows. But there is
no action which does not produce some result, otherwise we
would contradict the doctrine of the " conservation of
energy." We may call these actions intransitive. ,

{S) An exercise of power so as to 2)roduce_a,result—e. g., fire /'^Tt-i.i-it'^^
hardens clay. This has in it, as an essential part, the eftect-
uation 6f~a. result. These we may call transitive — passing of
a power from the agent to the thing acted upon. ' ,

{3) An intentional^ exercise of power so as to produce a f-ittlivtiM^ /t
result. We say the orator addressed the people. Here
there is an enlargement of our conception, and we take into
consideration the intention had in view in the effectuation of a
result.

Here we may also class all those actions where a person
endeavors to effect an end and fails or misses his aim.
Hence we say there is an attemptive as well as an effective
action — e. g.^ hunter wounding bird. Such actions fully

agree and coincide with intentional actions as far as the in-
tentions and resolutions of man to perform go. Hence
these occupy an important place in human and divine law.
A man endeavoring to do his duty is reckoned guiltless
though he fail, as a pilot or engineer.
, • » ___j_j (^) An intentional doing of something from, a given animus or

fi^-^-'H^Cfi-/^^^-^ YRotivity. We think of the life of some conquerors, and say
it was full of ambitious actions, or that of a philanthropist
full of benevolent actions. Hence, from the spirit, we class
actions as " base," " honorable," " ignoble," and " interested "
actions.

Actions, therefore, are intransitive, transitive, intentional,
desideraiive. These difi'erent classes are not so distinguished
as that the same radical activity can not belong to two, or
even all four, at once.

An intransitive action is so called because of that particu-
lar view and conception which the mind takes of it, and not
of its own intrinsic nature.

The same is true of transitive actions. Hence a transi-
tive action is often founded upon and has an intransitive
aspect. Sometimes transitive actions may be conceived of
as intransitive. But we can not make an intransitive action
the object of an intentional doing.

The intentional embraces less than the desiderative.

The desiderative is founded upon the intentional. The
intentional is the desiderative viewed in a more limited
light. We are not acquainted with a man's motives, and
hence we may consider an action merely intentional. The
desiderative is related to the intentional as the transitive is
to the intransitive.

II. MORAL ACTIONS.

(_?) No action ?> moral simplg as an exercise of power, or even
as effectuating a result — c. g., the wind blows. In order to have
a moral character they must have so^^elation to aj'ational_
being. Story — Johnnie Schoonmaker.

(2) Every moral action^ fully, considered, is both the infentional
and the' desiderative effectuation of n result, or at least an in-
tentional and desiderative attempt. Moral action is not
always the actual effectuation of a result. An attempted
assassination would make the man an assassin, even though
he failed. The moral action includes the intention and
peculiar animus.

(3) Actions as morally right and wrong are merely inteyitional,
but as virtuous and vicious they are desiderative also. An ac-

"no^naybe righf wliifeyet it is not virtuous, A man who
is honest because honesty is the best policy does right, but
he is only a politic and selfish man. A wrong action can
not be done without a vicious animus, though a right action
may be done without a virtuous animus. Any wrong action
is the intentional effectuation of what is bad — the words used
to denote wrong acts carry with them an idea of viciousness.

(4) The word "intentional" here signifies either inten-
tionable or intended at least, or they could have no place or
care in a moral law. Irish policeman threatens one for
breaking an unknown law.

No action can have a moral nature which is not actually
or possibly related to the understanding of a moral being.

{5) We should distinguish between what is absolutely and
divinely right and what is humanly or relatively so. This
will clear up difficulties and perplexities. Men sometimes
looked upon slavery as divine. So, in consequence of hu-
man infirmity, what is absolutely wrong may be relatively
right, and vice versa.

LECTURE VI. ^ V

Moral Reason or Conscience.

To understand moral laws and actions we should under-
stand the nature of the Moral Faculty, and this, in itself, is
worthy of study. "We shall consider Jirst — the nature of its
operations, and second — its principal products.

The faculty may be viewed under three lights and under
three names. !No study throws more light on our ideas than
the careful study of synonyms. It is very seldom, indeed,
that two words or names are completely synonymous.

(1) Conscience — conscientia — (ToveiSrjcn^. If we viewed only
its etymological meaning we would jB.nd it=consciousness^
concomitant knowing, and indeed originally among the
Scholastics conscience did mean consciousnes. The idea of a
concomitant knowledge may have a two-fold meaning. Man
has thoughts, desires, feelings, but he can also observe these
as they flow along. Then there is another concomitant
knowledge which follows and exists together with other
states — e. ^., beautiful young maiden pleasing a company and
conscious of it. This adds a new and different meaning to
the word. Now conscience is rather of the latter kind ;
for, knowing our lives we may also know them in their moral
relations.

[2) Moral sense — a power of cognition accompanied by a
power of feeling, yet not merely the result of feelings. The
Latin word, sentio, indicates that cognition which takes place
in connection with feeling.

In English the first and simple meaning of sense is seen
when we contrast it with intellect. Then sense signifies
sense perception. Used in a higher meaning it loses almost
entirely all idea of feeling — e. g., a man of good sense.

The Greek word — alada-voimi — gives us the intellectual
character in stronger form. JEsthetics=that exercise and
judgment of taste by which we discover the elements of

beauty and have a corresponding feeling. The Germans
give it a wider significance and include morals. The truth
to be noted is that it is the peculiar quality of moral percep-
tions to rouse within us feelings which correspond to the
nature of the actions contemplated.

{3) Right or Moral Reason — is the best term philosophically
when properly restricted. It is so called not because it is
any more right than any other reason. Right Reason is
directed toward moral rightness.

Limitations — [a] Reason has an intuitive as well as a dis-
cursive mode. Some men look upon it only as the discur-
sive power.

Locke. Reason^that faculty of intelligence whereby man
and his intellect is distinguished from the brute and his in-
telligence.

Hamilton. Reason=that comprehending and penetrating
power of the human intellect whereby it is enabled to have
a complete and satisfactory knowledge of things. It may
be exercised synthetically or analytically.

(6) Reason may be motive as well as intellectual. Mere
thought has no motivity, but the soul has motivity and it is
a condition of the soul's motivity that it should have
thought.

If we allow, then, that the soul has moral motivities, we
can easily enlarge and amplify the meaning of reason.
Hence, Moral or Right Reason is the best term for our moral
faculty.

LECTURE VII.

The Conceptions of the Moral Reason.

These are distinguished from those of the Speculative
Reason in being Motive, hence, the Moral Reason may be
considered a particular development of the Practical Reason.

I. Moral ends. Some ethical systems speak of ends almost

exclusively. Egoism or Epicureanism has an end of personal
ease or pleasure. When we rise to Utilitarianism the end is
very proniinent, though here not a personal end but the
welfare of all who are affected by our actions — " greatest good
of the greatest number."

Other systems look almost exclusively to actions. Alex-
ander, in his moral science, gives almost no reference to
moral ends. He says our desires and motivities have a
moral character, but makes no mention of ends as having a
moral character.

Both these errors are to be avoided. Moral actions involve
ends — they are the intentional effectuation of a result. The
doctrine of ends is absolutely necessary, but a system look-
ing to ends alone is defective. Moral ends are an important
class of conceptions formulated by the Moral Reason.

The end of punitive justice is the rebuke of sin, the main-
tenance of law, the establishment and continuance of God's
moral government over rational beings.

II. Actions, or doings, as right and wrong — and hence jpositively
and negatively obligatory. Some actions are in themselves
true and ultimate moral ends.

Actions are right or wrong, per se or essentiam, and per
accidens or consequens. Simply stated, some actions are in-
herently, necessarily and eternally right and wrong, but
others are right and wrong only from surrounding circum-
stances. This divides rigbt and obligatory actions from one
another, and does not divide right and obligatory from those
which are not right and obligatory. Those actions which in
their full development are essentially wrong may be con-
tracted and include actions which are not wrong per se.
Many actions are right ^er se, and only by a special contrac-
tion of view can a part of them per accidens be deemed
right. Ordinary business transactions may take on a moral
character.

III. Moral agents and their desires and doings as obligated or
bound. We now speak of actions as due or obligated in

addition to being right or wrong. The agent and his actions
and desires cannot be separated in reality. But we may
separate and speak of them by abstraction.

That which primarily binds is the moral end, that which
is primarily bound is the moral desire. There may be
cases of duty where a man can do nothing, still it is his duty
to desire to do that duty.

Actions are due or bound as effective or conducive to the
moral end. The same action in different relations is either
right and obligatory, or obligated and bound. To speak
of an action as right and obligatory is not the same as to
speak of it as due and bound.

As actions and desires are simply abstract ways of con-
sidering persons as acting and desiring, the ultimate truth
may be expressed by saying that the person is bound to do
or to desire. \

IV. We conceive of human character^ life and conduct as virtu-
ous or as vicious. The conceptions already discussed pertain
directly to the moral law. Ends, right actions, duty, are
conceptions of the moral law ; virtue and vice set forth the
realized effect of the law as obeyed or broken. The concep-
tion of conduct as virtuous, or as vicious, is more compre-
hensive than any of the other conceptions considered.

LECTURE VIII.
The Moral Law.

In Ethics we deal with two fundamental questions : First^
_the body; of ,_the_aiomLIaw : what is that essential nature of
that of which moral rightness and obligatoriness may be
predicated? and, second, whatisthe nature of this obliga-
toriness ?

I. Bi/ the Moral Law we do not mean the law as published by
divine authority, but the law as natwdly known to mankind. The

divine law is, without question, the most perfect expression of
it for all moral creatures. We look at the law of God, as
understood without revelation, as written on the heart of man.
"We find that it consists of certain general conceptions which
men naturally form, fixing their ends of pursuit and modes
of activity. To be honest, truthful, obedient to parents,
concerned for the public good and peace — these are the
spontaneous dictates of man's nature.

II. This law cannot be accounted for by materialistic philoso-
phers. This is scarcely worthy of consideration. Matter
cannot act upon matter to produce a conscience or a moral
rule.

Two theories have divided men :

(i) There is an ultimate and universal nature in which
these moral ideas reside. These ideas being " everywhere,
and every when" they become specially present in the mind
of God and in the minds of his rational creatures.

(^) This law is_not an immediate per.ceptiou of the " Ulti-
mate Reason." Moral rules are formed by the mind in the
same way as other rules, i. e., by generalization from indi-
vidual cases of duty. None of these rules are the original pos-
sessions of the mind. All our earliest ideas are specific and
individual^ and from these we rise to general ideas. We do
get some things from parents and older people, but these
rules came originally by generalization. Every man has
power to judge of the morality of these rules.

III. This laiojias an inhexerit sujprerae authority. Sometimes
we say that conscience is supreme ; sometimes that duty is
obligatory. Conscience is a faculty which claims to regu-
late all things for us. This is true, but conscience is only an
interpreter of the law, e. g.^ Supreme judges of U. S. Court.
When we say that "duty is obligatory," we recognize a su-
perlative obligation, from which we cannot escape. This is
true, but what are these duties which draw and bind us ?
They do not as yet exist; they are ideal and not real things,

to be realized in our future conduct. It is best to say,
" Law is supreme." Law^a collection and simplification
of all those dutiful ideals which are binding upon the
soul. There is no place where we can be free from the re-
quirements of duty, no time in life when we are free from
moral law.

IV. TJic Idir cn))si.'^fs of commandments and prohibitions, i. e.,
of things right, good and obligatory to do or seek, and of
things wrong, .eyil, ^^)^^ obligatory not to do or seek. It has
thus a positive and a negative character. In Christian duty
we have commandments and prohibitions. Actions as right
and wrong are not related to each other as merely privative.
There are actions which are indifiterent. Wrong is not
simply opposition to right; it has in it something inherently
and p)ositiveiy wrong. We should study the right before the
wrong, because all rational beings are and must be striving
toward right as their goal.

V. Certain senses of the adjective ^^ right" and the noun
*^ right" are to be distinguished from that moral Rightness
which is the basis of obligations, and which is the distin-
guishing characteristic of the moral law. By " right "
things we mean what the law sets forth as good and obliga-
tory upon moral beings, and not either "rights," or "things
not wrong."

LECTURE IX.

Primary Generalization.

In Ethics we deal with two fundamental questions :
First, The body of the moral law ; what is the nature ot
that of which moral rightness and obligatoriness may be
predicated ? Secoiid, What is the nature of that obligatori-
ness ? Now, which of these two shall we understand first ?
Many have considered the question of moral rightness as

something immediately known by intuitive or practical
reason.

The matter of the law should he studied in order to an
understanding of its own nature and its rightness. In phys-
ical science, to determine the nature of the directive ten-
dency of loadstone we accumulate a mass of facts — needles,
magnets, electric currents, currents over the -earth — in all
these we seek the cause of this directive tendency. Thus
an ascending generalization results.

So we direct our attention to the matter of the moral law,
seeking the common nature which belongs to all right actions
and ends.

It will be an ascending generalization by elimination.
The great claims of actions are right and obligatory apart
from their 'peculiarities; there must be some feature which
renders them all right and obligatory.

Our generalizations need not begin absolutely with in-
dividual instances. Men have fashioned many general con-
ceptions of right and wrong, and these are practically all we
need. Philosophically, they may not be correct or ultimate
or exclusive. Their object is ^^radi'ra/, not speculative. All
scientists use more or less ordinary classifications. So we
would begin with conceptions of duty found in the ordinary
mind and language of mankind. Here we must explain
terms. In English we are necessitated to use terms which
refer rather to the virtues than to the duties themselves.
Still we can indicate duties by terms expressive of the cor-
responding virtues.

Four great. classes of Virtues and Duty :

1. Moral Goodness.

2. Moral Esteem.

3. Regulative Righteousness.

4. Causative Righteousness.

We neglect the prohibitions of the law, presenting only
the positive side, since an understanding of the positive
side will lead to an understanding of the negative side.

I. MORAL GOODNESS.

We can use the term Moral Goodness in a.,Y,Qr,y '!^i^^-
sense, including every form of beneficence and benevolence,
anything that aims at the happiness and welfare of human
beings. This virtue manifests itself in two ways : (1) the
relief of wretchedness and sorrow, and (2) the production of
happiness and gladness. It not only does good, but also
cEerishes the spirit of love in our hearts for all beings.
Love for God and for man is the " fulfilling " of the law.

TI. MOEAL ESTEEM.

Moral Esteem gives special regard and treatment to rational
beings according to their moral characte;". It says practi-
cally: Do good to all men, but especially to those who are
upright and virtuous. There are two ways of exercising
this : We must shew a special practical favor to good men,
to those who are of the " household of faith." This does
not require evil of us, though under certain circumstan-
ces w^e must withdraw our practical kindness and regard
from those who are unworthy of it. The second manifesta-
tion is exhibited in special love to the virtuous— spiritual
brotherhood, God for our father and Christ for our elder
brother.

Moral beings may sink to such a state as to be no longer
the proper object of the love of rational beings. This law
does not conflict with Moral Goodness. It operates more
fully in affections than in actions.

III. REGULATIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Regulative Righteousness, or Righteousness, simply urges
all the ordinary rules of right conduct, Justitia generalise or
general justice. We saj' Regulative Righteousness because
the aim is not positive, and is not to advance the general
welfare of mankind, but to keep men from seeking ends
conflicting with the requirements of duty. It includes all
the morality that is enforced in human courts, and all rules

of right and honorable dealing. There are many things
which we do — pay debts, abstain from wrong language —
that are manifestations of Righteousness, but not of Moral
Goodness. The legislation of courts and civil law fall
under this form. It has its affectional as well as its practi-
cal development. There are natural affections and disposi-
tions which we must exercise — modesty, humility, liberality,
and chastity. These natural dispositions of themselves
have no moral character, if not rightly regulated they may
degenerate into feelings that are wrong — modesty may be-
come awkward bashfulness. They are virtuous when regu-
lated.

IV. CAUSATIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Causative Righteousness is that which aims to cause
righteousness and moral excellence of every kind. It is a
duty in which virtue is causative of itself. It may be in-
formal or formal. Its ground is two-fold — we may simply
desire honest things to be done for their own inherent
Tightness; or we may promote virtue as moral good.

Its prominent development is JRectoral Righteousness, and
of this the most important development is Punitive Righteous-
ness=Ju8tice. This occupies a large place both in human
and divine government.

LECTURE X.
Moral Grocdness.

Moral goodness should come first because of its very sim-
plicity, having one great aim, and that positive. Regulative
Righteousness has a preventive application, but Moral Good-
ness gives us only a progressive aim. We introduce two new
terms, Practive and Commotive.

We have already distinguished between the duty of benefi-
cence and benevolence, also practical and affectional duties

of Regulative Righteousness ; one consists of doing rightly,
the other consists of cherishing right feelings within our
hearts. We have as yet no word for those moral motivities
which aim at those duties, hence we propose Practive and
Commotive. Practive aims at_ practical__activity and Com-
motive aims at cherishing internal moti_ves. There is a dif-
ference between the affection and the moral motivity which
aims at that affection ; the motivity mingles with the affection
which it aims to cherish and regulate. We need so to dis-
tinguish because the affection may be in some cases right
and in others wrong.

L The law of Practive Goodness is " Do Good." Good
is happiness or whatever contributes to^bappiness — what-
ever banishes pain or diminishes the amount of misery in
the world. The loss of good or actual causation of misery
are both alike bad. A drunkard finds enjoyment and not
happiness, for the wretchedness and misery far exceeds the
enjoyment.

Happiness is the ultimate end sought by Moral Goodness
or beneficence, and as secondary whatsoever serves or pro-
motes happiness. Merchants call their articles " goods,"
health, strength are good; from these we rise in the scale
until we enter into the moral sphere and find the virtues of
the human soul the highest good. Dr. Hopkins. The second-
ary forms are good for something, but happiness as the ulti-
mate good is " good for nothing," Happiness is not good for
anything bej^ond itself.

II. Thoconception good is most fiexible and applies to a great
variety of things. "Pain is not an evil to a wise man" —
it conies for our discipline and development in manhood.
The term is applied to the transitory amusements and pleas-
ures of the present hour — again to the blessedness of the
saints throughout all eternity.

Hence Practive Moral Goodness is most comprehensive
in its scope; we must seek and promote every form of good.
The lowest form of good is comfort and gratification. Story

— Irish peasant woman : " I've had haith a warmin' and
afillin'." James 2: 16.

This duty becomes very excellent when it assumes a per-
manent form.

III. The good at which Moral Goodness aims is sought
under a ynost absolute and unrestricted view of man's practical
relations. It is all the good of wTiich the case admits, or a part
of that total considered as part of it. We may take limited
views of good. We may pursue only one kind of good ; or
the good of only one individual, or of only one class of indi-
viduals, excluding others. We should contribute to every
form of good to which our actions can lend an aid. We
should seek good purely and simply and all the good attain-
able in the case.

IV. It is not easy to find a name for so comprehensive a
conception. The term " good " is but a feeble expression
when called to take in both earthly things and the blessedness
of the saints in heaven. It is generally bound to some limited
object and aim; but no phrase is better than " Absolute Good."
This law of moral good is not Utilitarian, because (a) it is not
confined to any low view of good, and (6) it concerns only
one department of duty and not the whole law. Absolute
Good and the Summum Bonum are not identical.

We must seek whatever is right and good for its own
sake, and virtue is the highest and purest good. This illus-
trates the exceedingly rational character of the Moral
Faculty and what we mean by Rational Intuitionism.

LECTURE XI.

Commotive Goodness.

These distinctions of Tractive and Commotive Goodness
somewhat run counter to common thought and language.
We commonly distinguish aflfections and desires, not as
actions, as the springs and causes of actions.

27
I. Commoiive Virtue in general is conditioned

[T) On the existence of desires ;)nd affections.
, [2) On a self-regard or intelligent consciousness.
{3) A power of guiding the attention to objects of desire.

All motivities whatever spring from the consideration of
such objects. This power resembles the helm of a great
ship — the ship cannot escape winds and waves, but it can use
both to drive it to its destination. We cannot stifle desires
but we have power to control them.

(^) A rationalit£,^hich may use this power for one's self-
control and guidance. Brutes have no attentive conscious-
ness r T^Hey cannot control their lives as the human spirit.
Man has a rational power which devises ends, compares ends
and seeks some of them. Reason claims a superiority, to
be a ruler, a judge of the other motivities of the human soul.

II. Commoiive Goodness— -xiQgaXvfQXj.

(i) Benevolence is not all virtue or duty. The mistake
made by New England theologians was to reduce all virtue
to an exercise of Christian love.

{2) Benevolence in itself has no moral character; it receives
this from right reason. To live in purity, justice, truth and
honesty constitute a part but not all of our duty.

[3) Not loving simply, but a certain style or mode of loving
is our duty. Hence Aristotle's Golden Mean has an im-
portant place in morals.

III. The Law of Commotioe Goodness.

The rational soul, or ego, feels and follows this law intui-
tively ; it has no necessary conception of the law above it.
Some say we should love beings according to their dignity ;
it is true that we should have a special love for morally
excellent beings, but this cannot be said to be an exercise of
affectional goodness.

The Law of Com motive Goodness inquires consentaneity of
ja^eciion with Practive Goodness — one should exercise love to
others consentaneously with doing them good.

(i) So as not to conflict with other duty — never love man
more than God.

(^) So as to give assistance and cooperation — thus we should
live, with special love to our neighbor, to whom we may do
more good than to people at a distance.

{3) When these regulations are observed there arises a call
for a free exercise of affection to all beings. In this way
God loves all who are capable of being loved.

IV. Reasons for this rule are in the rule itself but may be
more distinctly considered. To secure {a) a unity or har-
mony of man's life as an active moral being ; (b) to reinforce
Practive Goodness ; (c) to realize in right-loving itself one of
the highest and most absolute of good things.

LECTURE XII.

Practive Goodness enjoins us to do all the good that the case
admits of. Commotive goodness follows the same law. We
should love as many beings as possible, and as much as may
be. Regulative Righteousness is a law allied to Moral
Goodness. The term Regulative Righteousness may have
a very wide signification. General Righteousness may
comprehend all duty, including Moral Goodness and Moral
Ethics. So the theologians of the Middle Ages spoke of
justitia toia.

Reg-ulative Righteousness.

I. But commonly, and as now used, the terms Righteous-
ness and Justice have a more restricted sense. Righteous-
ness, as we now employ it, does not cover the whole of the
moral law, but designates that morality which regulates life
by rules, rather than guides life by positive aims. But we
must not limit Righteousness too much. Civil law enforces
only rules of Righteousness, but the rules of Righteousness are

not alHneluded in civil law, since it embraces much more.
A great heresy was introduced by Thomas Hobbes when he
claimed that the right was fixed by the will of the sovereign
and by civil authority. There are many things which are just
and right and obligatory, of which civil law takes no notice.
Thus the laws of Regulative Righteousnes are fashioned by
the moral sense — the conscience. When we compare Regu-
lative Righteousness , and Moral Goodness, one gives us
aims and the other give^ys rules. ^

II. Since the rules of Righteousness and aims of Good-
ness are both alike right and obligatory, we naturally look
for a common basis for this in both. The laws of Righteous-
ness are many and diverse; the aims of gjoodness are essen-
tially one. In all our moral aims and hopes, we want only
the_^q^ of men. If there be anything common, it must be
related to the general end of goodness.

Analyzing the laws of Righteousness, we find each really
concerns a general good or interest. I^otice the four principal
classes in the decalogue of man's relations to his fellow men:

(i) Obey superiors — fifth commandment.

(2) Do not kill — cause no bodily harm to any one.

(3) Do not commit adultery — a chaste and pure life.
{4) Do not steal — rights of property sacred.

(5) Or bear false-witness — truth or veracity always.

Going over these again, we see the great and radical
interest involved in each :

{1) Obedience — without this the home would be broken
up. Even the state could not exist without obedience.

(3) Cruelty is abhorrent to us, everywhere. Necessity,
alone, can justify the taking away of life.

(<?) family relations must be conserved or the world will
be simply the dwelling-place of brutes and animals.

(4) Man has a right to become rich and prosperous.

(5) At first sight this appears separate from men's inter-
ests, on the ground that we should tell the truth always.
But truth is one of the most fundamental and vital interests
of mankind.

The affectional rules of Righteousness follow the practical
rules in much the same way that the duty of loving follows
the duty of doing good. They agree in one respect : they
both relate to good. They are contrasted : one is progres-
sive, the other conservative.

III. Regulative Righteousness is defensive and conserva-
tive morality, and is contrasted with goodness as not being
essentially progressive. We should not only refrain from
evil but should also conserve the good. Some have called
Moral Goodness a positive virtue, and Righteousness a nega-
tive virtue. But a rule of Regulative Righteousness is like a
railroad bridge : does not contribute directly to our onward
progress, but yet performs a part.

This conservativeness is its radical essence, but it has a
positive bearing. Its rules or modes of action are not so im-
mediately and evidently connected with their ends or results
as those of Moral Goodness. Hence, there is sometimes a
tendency to break loose from right rules and seek ends at
variance with Regulative Righteousness. Veracity — duty of
giving truth to those who have the right to know the truth.

IV. Yet, in every case, they not only defend or conserve
some good, but also some absolute good. Thus, the idea of
absolute good or absoluteness of good, directly or indirectly,
seems to shape the laws of Practive Goodness, of Commotive
Goodness, and of Regulative Righteousness.

LECTURE XIII.

Causative Righteousness.

We pass over Moral Esteem, in its two developments,
practical and affectional, remarking only that neither of these
conflicts with the law of Moral Goodness, but, like that law,
and like the law of Regulative Righteousness, they have
their basis in the conception of absolute good.

I. Causative Righteousness has two forms — the inci'Dm^f. and
thejkmlojaed. The first aims chieflj to stimulate virtue ^wA
make it effective. Just as in dangers, we stimulate the
courage of men by earnest words. The second promotes
virtue, as in itself a great and excellent end. Just as we
seek education, not for what we may remember, but that we
may grow into true and honorable men.

II. Virtue as formally an end has been called Moral Good.
Moral Good aims at good in its practical and affectional

forms ; Regulative Righteousness aims, not so positively, but
still at good ; the aims of Moral Esteem coincide with those
of Moral Goodness and add to the sum of good and the
happiness of rational beings.

THUS VIRTUE IS A GOOD :

[1) By reason of its direct operation to ham'sh^verv form of
evil doing jiudi to realize beneficence and righteousness. It
aims at the welfare and blessedness of human beings, and if
it had its scope the millennium would soon be here.

(^) By reason of its concomitants Virtue is the proper, ob-
ject of a pure and high spiritual life. Its qualities make it
the })r()per object of our admiration and affection. These
are [a) its inherent, beauty and loveliness, of which the char-
acter of Christ gives us the most conspicuous example.
(6) The well ordered condition both of inward capacity and
external relation which the virtuous enjoy. It is the way of
true and eternal prosperity. In virtue man obtains more
peace and happiness than anywhere else, (e) The inward
and constant satisfaction which the virtuous spirit experi-
ences from his harmony with right and with moral order.
That a peaceful and happy frame of mind can only be
enjoyed by him whose heart and life are in conformity with
moral law, is not a doctrine of Scripture alone, but the
experience of all people. It is the glory of our gospel to
produce this virtue in its fullness.

III. Virtue is the purest, greatest and best good — thB^ummum
Bonum. It enters into the human soul and becomes a
fountain of eternal life. As such, it is the highest form of
Absolute Good. We dutifully promote virtue under this
aspect of it. Hence the absurdity of " Do evil that good
may come." We should do nothing accompanied by moral
turpitude.

IV. Absolute Good is the highest and broadest practical
conception of the human mind. But, as Dr. McCosh re-
marks, regarding the phrase Moral Good : " the word good
here, but feebly expresses our thought, because ordinarily
good refers to what is merely useful or pleasurable." The
TO (iya-d^ov of Plato scems to have been his expression for
Absolute Good. It included every right ethical end, and em-
braced every divine excellence. Absolute Good, as an end,
is the matter of the Moral Law.

LECTURE XIV.

Conclusion.

We have reached the idea of ro ayadnv^ or absolute good, as
the ultimate form of the moral law. The doctrine of ru ciyad-ov
consists with the common conviction of mankind, we identify the
right with absolute good as o.n end and moral rightness with abso-
luteness of good as characterizing an end. It has been the
habit of philosophers merely to meditate on duty and moral
law, and then to endeavor to obtain a principle which may
pervade and explain it all. Our doctrine has not been
reached by conjecture ; not by the comparison of theories, as is
the case with Cicero and Aristotle ; not by deduction from
general principles. To reason here from general principles
is to fall into petitio principii. We must form general princi-
ples and not reason from them. The doctrine is reached by

patient analysis and generalization. Moral rightuess is the
absoluteness of good of the absolutely good; having this
absoluteness as an end, it has the attribute of rightness.

Does it conform to the Common Sense of men f If it disagrees
Avith any of the phenomena which it is offered to explain, it
is unsatisfactory.

We consider absolute good to be the basis of moral law.

I. It accounts for that peculiar excellence and attractive-
ness which belongs to right ends and actions. For the law
is holy, just and good'.

The moral law has its goodness to a great extent in being
holy and just. Holiness is goodness considered in opposition
to everything evil and wrong.

Then justice is a kind of deliberate and thoughtful good-
ness, according to which we defend the most important inter-
ests of rational beings.

Absolute goodness is at the bottom of the attractiveness
which philosophers and poets ascribe to virtue, e.g., the
choice of Hercules.

II. It explains the legal superiority and supremacy of
right ends and modes of conduct over all others which can
in any way compete with them. "I would rather be right
than President." "Duty should be first and pleasure after-
wards." Every other pursuit besides pleasure should be sub-
ordinated to right and duty. For the absolute good, in any
case, is the total amount of good of which the case admits.

In divorce laws, incompatibility of temper as a ground of
separation would result in untold evils, destroying the sta-
bility of society. Special and private must be subordinated
to absolute good.

III. It reveals the nature of moral obligation, i.e.., of the
legal subjection of one's personal life to the claims of what
is right and good. This relation is sui generis, but imme-
diately follows from the innate superiority of all forms of the
ro ayaUirj Qvcr all Other aims or ends. The relation is peculiar,

like that of similarity or the relation of cause and eflect.
There are relations which may exist and yet may be legal
relations though they do not exist, e.g., the mountain travel-
ler. The nature of the obligation arises from the nature of
the ends.

Those ends which are supreme are necessarily supreme
over man's actions.

IV. It shows the rational ground on which specific laws
of duty may be limited or set aside for the time. De con-
tentione honesti et utilis is a chapter in the De Officiis illustra-
ting this. For, to be useful is a duty.

There are cases where what seems to be one absolute
rio^ht interferes and sets aside another absolute riojht. Noth-
ing is more necessary in the science of casuistry than a rule
setting forth which duty should supercede another; it must
be founded on some such principle as -o ayrv^ov.

Life and liberty are inalienable rights, yet there are cases
where these rights are forfeited by transgressions or sacrificed
to duty.

The weaker right always sets forth something which is
an absolute good in ordinary circumstances. The stronger
is of the same nature but extends more deeply and widely.

V. It gives the most satisfactory explanation of Punitive
Justice.

This principle shows itself in the natural instinct to inflict
evil on the evil-doer, and more formally in Courts and Laws
and Penalties; also in the doctrine of Future Punishment.

But what God and good men hate is sin and not the sinner.
Even eternal punishment is employed with an end of good-
.ness. It is founded on the principle that it is better for one
man to perish rather than all be destroyed. It is the neces-
sary means of maintaining the Moral Law and the moral
stability and prosperity of Created Beings.

§ 3- DIVISIONS OF ETHICS.

There are several divisions given for this science. Calder
wood has used a common one in his book, viz.: (i) the
Psychology in Ethics; (2) the Metaphysic in Ethics; (3) Ap-
plied Ethics. Another common division is twofold, viz. :
(i) Theoretical, and (2) Practical, Ethics. This, tho' sound, is
open to objections in that (i) some topics {c. g. love) have to
be treated in both parts and (2) the division is too mechanical.
The aim of the following division will be to show the organic
relations of the parts of the science.

(i) The Categorical Imperative. Ought is the dominant
word in Ethics. It may appear in two forms, vi.'^. : (i) the
whiclrend one ought to realize (= the Good), and (2) the norm
to which one ought to conform (=- the Right). Under it,
therefore, are two heads — the Right and the Good.

(2) The Right may be viewed in two ways: (i) subject-
ively as seen in conduct ( — virtue) ; (2) objectively as seen in
a code (= moral law).

The moral law will enjoin duties on a person in accord-
ance to the relations in which he stands. These duties are of
two kinds —

(1) The duties which a person owes as an individual,
irrespective of his relations to others. These give rise to the
science of Individual Ethics.

(2) The duties which grow out of the relations of a man
with his fellowmen. These give rise to the science of Social
Ethics.

§ 4. The Categorical Imperative. As to this three ques-
tions arise :

(i) Why are morals founded on the Categorical Imperative?

(2) Why are they not founded on the Right ?

(3) Why are they not founded on the Good ?

(t) The idea of the Categorical Imperative corresponding
to the idea of ought, implies that human conduct is subject to
a command and that other motives are not to be considered in
comparison to the command. Impulses may exist, but when
they conflict with the idea of ought they should be at once
rejected. There may be moral impulses and appetites. Du-
gald Stuart has treated of these and of the manner of their
development. But we also act under the feeling of oughtness.

The question as to whether the idea oi ought is ultimate or
not, is a most important ethical problem. On its solution
depends the question as to whether conduct is ruled by the
idea of ought or by the rules of experience.

If ought is an a priori idea it is the most appropriate start-
ing point for the science of Ethics: for it divides conduct into
obligatory and non obligatory and rules out the non-obligatory
as non ethical.

If actions cannot be commanded the whole science of Eth-
ics must be changed. If there is no obligatory morality, the
science of Ethics has to do either with the way men act now,
or with the generalization of experience into rules to guide
conduct. Thus if a man made pleasure the end of life, the
Epicurean would teach him that the best way to prolong
enjoyment would be to avoid extremes. Or if he were per-
suaded to live for the health and life of the social organism,
Leslie Stevens could give him good advice. He would say
that the moral law expresses the conditions necessary to the
healthy perpetuation of humanity. But the humanity preached
would be advice and not command.

Whether the Categorical Imperative has a right to its
place or not is a question that we must discuss. But if it has
a place, morality must be based on it.

(2) Our system of Ethics should not be founded on the
idea of Right : for this idea implies a standard by which con-
duct is to be judged. It is predicable of an action, not of an
agent. The prior question why we ought to do right shows
that the idea o^ ought is above that of Right.

(3) We should not found our system of Ethics on the idea
of Good, not for the reason given by Calderwood — that good
is predicable only of things — but because the good is generally
understood to mean the desirable and therefore the end or
final cause of action. We always have some purpose in life,
and when we have answered the question what we intend to
make of ourselves, we have found what is for us the good. It
may be " getting on in life," or usefulness, or success in our
profession, etc. Again we should not make the Good the
basis of our ethical system because the Good may have two
different meanings. It may mean (i) what men individually
and collectively actually desire ; and (2) what they ought to
desire.

Suppose we found our system on the Summum Bonum
and begin by defining the Good as what men ought to desire.
It is clear that we take for granted the word ought. If, on the
other hand, we define the Good as what men actually desire,
our system of Ethics, lacking the idea of obligation, will be
merely a system of advices using only the hypothetical im-
perative.

§ 5. (a) The question now arises, " What is moral con-
conduct?" What conduct is capable of moral measurement?

As far as Ethics regulates conduct, we must consider con-
duct moral. But all conduct is not ethical. Therefore there
is moral and non-moral conduct. Many things have no moral
quality in them except in relation to other things.

(b) A second question is, " What conduct is worthy of
moral approval ? "

A bad act is the subject of moral measurement, but not of
moral approval. Again the giving a large gift to a benevolent
institution is the subject of our approval. Bat this approval
is to us not necessarily moral. We would not have con-
demned the giver if he had not given the money. But the
man himself may feel moral approval for the act. He may
view it from a moral standpoint — feeling that he ought to put
his money to the best use. If a man acts as he feels he ought,
his conduct is right. Whether the act is right or not is
another matter. But all this only leads to the conclusion that
every act to be judged as morally right must (i) be capable of
moral measurement — must be, or be felt to be, obligatory —
and must (2) be performed unaffected by non-moral influences.
Thus the man who does not lie or steal merely because he
fears detection is not acting morally. Kant presents this very
strongly. He says that duty is a necessity to act out of
respect for law. Hence, no matter how pure one's motive may
be, unless he feels it his duty so to do, the act is not a moral
one. One may feel both an obligation and an appetite or im-
pulse. If these conflict, the idea of obligation should come to
the front. If duty and interest agree, and if the man regards
only his interest his act is not worthy of moral approval.
Kant goes further. He says that if a man's aim by nature be
honorable and the bad is offensive to him, if such a man fol-
lows his natural instincts in action, his act is not moral. E.g.
If there are three men, one of whom is honest because
honesty pays, a second is honest because honesty is right,
and a third is honest because his whole nature rebels

against dishonesty, Kant would give his moral approval only
to the second. " The act of the first is," he says, " not moral
— infra-moral," The act of the third should therefore be
supra- moral. Kant does not say so, but he says that ought-
ness is a quality predicable only of imperfect moral agents.
We cannot agree with him here. Moral beings cannot trans-
cend the morally right. If inclination and obligation coincide
the latter should nf)t be ruled out, the act should be regarded
as capable of moral measurement.

§ 6. The idea of oughtness has been assumed above to be
given a priori. This has been objected to and we must dis-
cuss the question. We cannot stop with the idea of ought-
ness as ultimate, but must ask what is behind it. We discuss,
therefore, three topics which underlie the Categorical Im-
perative :

(i) Oughtness as a physchological fact.

(2) Metaphysical aspect of oughtness.

(3) The relations of oughtness and human freedom.
§ 7. Oughtness as a psychological fact.

It may help to reconcile us to the old intuitional idea of
oughtness if we observe the diversity of ideas among those
who deny it.

(i) Those who maintain that there is no legitimate place
for the idea of duty or oughtness in Ethics. Thus Schopen-
hauer says that oughtness is only a superficial and vulgar
idea and that Ethics is only theoretical : that the principle of
good arose from the pity men have for each other, and the
principle of wrong, from the insensibility of men for each
other. In his view moral science would describe men as
Biology does animals.

He puts sympathy for obligation and leads to conduct
which he approves but does not command. Yet he acknowl-
edges that only moral agents can be commanded.

Adam Smith makes the same mistake in ignoring oughtness.

(2) Those who claim that the doctrine of moral obligation
rests on the idea of will. Thus Hobbes claims that no right
exists until a law is enunciated by the state. Bain reproduces
this.

The difference between this school and the Intuitionists
turns on the relation of moral law to obligation. Hobbes and
his school consider moral law and conscience as the product
of human law. The Intuitionists hold the contrary.

■ ^\

■■ii^kmT^

'"^

j^mh,

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Lectures on theoretical ethics: notes taken in the class-room of Dr. Hamilton"

See other formats