Moral Science; a Compendium of Ethics Part 26

The other motives to virtue, namely, the a.s.sociation of our own acts of Justice and Beneficence, as cause, with other men's as effects, are subject to strong counteraction, for we can rarely perform such acts without sacrifice to ourselves. Still, there is in all men a certain surplus of motive from this cause, just as there is a surplus from the a.s.sociation of acts of ours, hostile to other men, with a return of hostility on their part.

The best names for the aggregate Affection, Motive, and Disposition in this important region of conduct, are _Moral Approbation_ and _Disapprobation_. The terms Moral Sense, Sense of Right and Wrong, Love of Virtue and Hatred of Vice, are not equally appropriate. Virtue and Morality are other synonyms.

In the work ent.i.tled, 'A Fragment on Mackintosh,' there are afforded farther ill.u.s.trations of the author's derivation of the Moral Sentiment, together with an exposition and defence of Utility as the standard, in which his views are substantially at one with Bentham. Two or three references will be sufficient.

In the statement of the questions in dispute in Morals, he objects to the words 'test' and 'criterion,' as expressing the standard. He considers it a mistake to designate as a 'test' what is the thing itself; the test of Morality is Morality. Properly, the thing testing is one thing; the thing tested another thing. The same objection would apply to the use of the word Standard; so that the only form of the first question of Ethics would be, What _is_ morality? What does it consist in? [The remark is just, but somewhat hypercritical. The ill.u.s.tration from Chemical testing is not true in fact; the test of gold is some essential attribute of gold, as its weight. And when we wish to determine as to a certain act, whether it is a moral act, we compare it with what we deem the essential quality of moral acts--Utility, our Moral Instinct, &c.--and the operation is not improperly called testing the act. Since, therefore, whatever we agree upon as the essence of morality, must be practically used by us as a test, criterion, or standard, there cannot be much harm in calling this essential quality the standard, although the designation is to a certain extent figurative.]

The author has some additional remarks on the derivation of our Disinterested feelings: he reiterates the position expressed in the 'a.n.a.lysis,' that although we have feelings directly tending to the good of others, they are nevertheless the growth of feelings that are rooted in self. That feelings should be detached from their original root is a well known phenomenon of the mind.

His ill.u.s.trations of Utility are a valuable contribution to the defence of that doctrine. He replies to most of the common objections.

Mackintosh had urged that the reference to Utility would be made a dangerous pretext for allowing exceptions to common rules. Mill expounds at length (p. 246) the formation of moral rules, and retorts that there are rules expressly formed to make exceptions to other rules, as justice before generosity, charity begins at home, &c.

He animadverts with great severity on Mackintosh's doctrines, as to the delight of virtue for its own sake, and the special contact of moral feelings with the will. Allowance being made for the great difference in the way that the two writers express themselves, they are at one in maintaining Utility to be the ultimate standard, and in regarding Conscience as a derived faculty of the mind.

The author's handling of Ethics does not extend beyond the first and second topics--the STANDARD and the FACULTY. His Standard is Utility.

The Faculty is based on our Pleasures and Pains, with which there are multiplied a.s.sociations. Disinterested Sentiment is a real fact, but has its origin in our own proper pleasures and pains.

Mill considers that the existing moral rules are all based on our estimate, correct or incorrect, of Utility.

JOHN AUSTIN. [1790-1859.]

Austin, in his Lectures on 'The Province of Jurisprudence determined,'

has discussed the leading questions of Ethics. We give an abstract of the Ethical part.

LECTURE I. Law, in its largest meaning, and omitting metaphorical applications, embraces Laws set by G.o.d to his creatures, and Laws set by man to man. Of the laws set by man to man, some are established by _political_ superiors, or by persons exercising government in nations or political societies. This is law in the usual sense of the word, forming the subject of Jurisprudence. The author terms it _Positive Law_. There is another cla.s.s of laws not set by political superiors in that capacity. Yet some of these are properly termed laws, although others are only so by a close a.n.a.logy. There is no name for the laws proper, but to the others are applied such names as '_moral_ rules,'

'the _moral_ law,' '_general_ or _public opinion_,' 'the law of _honour_ or of _fashion_.' The author proposes for these laws the name _positive morality_. The laws now enumerated differ in many important respects, but agree in this--that all of them are set _by_ intelligent and rational beings _to_ intelligent and rational beings. There is a figurative application of the word 'law,' to the uniformities of the natural world, through which, the field of jurisprudence and morals has been deluged with muddy speculation.

Laws properly so called are _commands_. A command is the signification of a desire or wish, accompanied with the power and the purpose to inflict evil if that desire is not complied with. The person so desired is _bound_ or _obliged_, or placed under a _duty_, to obey. Refusal is disobedience, or violation of duty. The evil to be inflicted is called a _sanction_, or an _enforcement of obedience_; the term _punishment_ expresses one cla.s.s of sanctions.

The term sanction is improperly applied to a Reward. We cannot say that an action is _commanded_, or that obedience is _constrained_ or _enforced_ by the offer of a reward. Again, when a reward is offered, a _right_ and not an obligation is created: the imperative function pa.s.ses to the party receiving the reward. In short, it is only by conditional _evil_, that duties are _sanctioned_ or _enforced_.

The correct meaning of _superior_ and _inferior_ is determined by command and obedience.

LECTURE II. The _Divine Laws_ are the known commands of the Deity, enforced by the evils that we may suffer here or hereafter for breaking them. Some of these laws are _revealed_, others _unrevealed_. Paley and others have proved that it was not the purpose of Revelation to disclose the whole of our duties; the Light of Nature is an additional source. But how are we to interpret this Light of Nature?

The various hypotheses for resolving this question may be reduced to two: (1) an Innate Sentiment, called a Moral Sense, Common Sense, Practical Reason, &c.; and (2) the Theory of Utility.

The author avows his adherence to the theory of Utility, which he connects with the Divine Benevolence in the manner of Bentham. G.o.d designs the happiness of sentient beings. Some actions forward that purpose, others frustrate it. The first, G.o.d has enjoined; the second, He has forbidden. Knowing, therefore, the tendency of any action, we know the Divine command with respect to it.

The tendency of an action is all its consequences near and remote, certain and probable, direct and collateral. A petty theft, or the evasion of a trifling tax, may be insignificant, or even good, in the direct and immediate consequences; but before the full tendency can be weighed, we must resolve the question:--What would be the probable effect on the general happiness or good, if _similar_ acts, or omissions, were general or frequent?

When the theory of Utility is correctly stated, the current objections are easily refuted. As viewed by the author, Utility is not the _fountain_ or _source_ of our duties; this must be commands and sanctions. But it is the _index_ of the will of the law-giver, who is presumed to have for his chief end the happiness or good of mankind.

The most specious objection to Utility is the supposed necessity of going through a calculation of the consequences of every act that we have to perform, an operation often beyond our power, and likely to be abused to forward our private wishes. To this, the author replies first, that supposing utility our only index, we must make the best of it. Of course, if we were endowed with a moral sense, a special organ for ascertaining our duties, the attempt to displace that invincible consciousness, and to thrust the principle of utility into the vacant seat, would be impossible and absurd.

According to the theory of Utility, our conduct would conform to _rules_ inferred from the tendencies of actions, but would not be determined by a direct resort to the principle of general utility.

Utility would be the ultimate, not the immediate test. To preface each act or forbearance by a conjecture and comparison of consequences were both superfluous and mischievous:--superfluous, inasmuch as the result is already embodied in a known rule; and mischievous, inasmuch as the process, if performed on the spur of the occasion, would probably be faulty.

With the rules are a.s.sociated _sentiments_, the result of the Divine, or other, command to obey the rules. It is a gross and flagrant error to talk of _subst.i.tuting_ calculation for sentiment; this is to oppose the rudder to the sail. Sentiment without calculation were capricious; calculation without sentiment is inert.

There are cases where the _specific_ consequences of an action are so momentous as to overbear the rule; for example, resistance to a bad government, which the author calls an _anomalous_ question, to be tried not by the rule, but by a direct resort to the ultimate or presiding-principle, and by a separate calculation of good and evil.

Such was the political emergency of the Commonwealth, and the American revolution. It would have been well, the author thinks, if utility had been the sole guide in both cases.

There is a second objection to Utility, more perplexing to deal with.

How can we know fully and correctly all the consequences of actions?

The answer is that Ethics, as a science of observation and induction, has been formed, through a long succession of ages, by many and separate contributions from many and separate discoverers. Like all other sciences, it is progressive, although unfortunately, subject to special drawbacks. The men that have enquired, or affected to enquire, into Ethics, have rarely been impartial; they have laboured under prejudices or sinister interests; and have been the advocates of foregone conclusions. There is not on this subject _a concurrence or agreement of numerous and impartial enquirers_. Indeed, many of the legal and moral rules of the most civilized communities arose in the infancy of the human mind, partly from caprices of the fancy (nearly omnipotent with barbarians), and partly from an imperfect apprehension of general utility, the result of a narrow experience. Thus the diffusion and the advancement of ethical truth encounter great and peculiar obstacles, only to be removed by a better general education extended to the ma.s.s of the people. It is desirable that the community should be indoctrinated with sound views of property, and with the dependence of wealth, upon the true principle of population, discovered by Malthus, all which they are competent to understand.

The author refers to Paley's Moral Philosophy as an example of the perverting tendency of narrow and domineering interests in the domain of ethics. With many commendable points, there is, in that work, much ign.o.ble truckling to the dominant and influential few, and a deal of shabby sophistry in defending abuses that the few were interested in upholding.

As a farther answer to the second objection, he remarks, that it applies to every theory of ethics that supposes our duties to be set by the Deity. Christianity itself is defective, considered as a system of rules for tho guidance of human conduct.

He then turns to the alternative of a Moral Sense. This involves two a.s.sumptions.

First, Certain sentiments, or feelings of approbation or disapprobation, accompany our conceptions of certain human actions.

These feelings are neither the result of our reflection on the tendencies of actions, nor the result of education; the sentiments would follow the conception, although we had neither adverted to the good or evil tendency of the actions, nor become aware of the opinions of others regarding them. This theory denies that the sentiments known to exist can be produced by education. We approve and disapprove of actions _we know not why_.

The author adapts Paley's supposition of the savage, in order to express strongly what the moral sense implies. But we will confine ourselves to his reasonings. Is there, he asks, any evidence of our being gifted with such feelings? The very putting of such a question would seem a sufficient proof that we are not so endowed. There ought to be no more doubt about them, than about hunger or thirst.

It is alleged in their favour that our judgments of rect.i.tude and depravity are immediate and voluntary. The reply is that sentiments begotten by a.s.sociation are no less prompt and involuntary than our instincts. Our response to a money gain, or a money loss, is as prompt as our compliance with the primitive appet.i.tes of the system. We begin by loving knowledge as a means to ends; but, in time, the end is inseparably a.s.sociated with the instrument. So a moral sentiment dictated by utility, if often exercised, would be rapid and direct in its operation.

It is farther alleged, as a proof of the innate character of the moral judgments, that the moral sentiments of all men are precisely alike.

The argument may be put thus:--No opinion or sentiment resulting from observation and induction is held or felt by all mankind: Observation and induction, as applied to the same subject, lead different men to different conclusions. Now, the judgments pa.s.sed internally on the rect.i.tude or pravity of actions, or the moral sentiments, are precisely alike with all men. Therefore, our moral sentiments are not the result of our inductions of the tendencies of actions; nor were they derived from others, and impressed by authority and example. Consequently, the moral sentiments are instinctive, or ultimate and inscrutable facts.

To refute such an argument is superfluous; it is based on a groundless a.s.sertion. The moral sentiments of men have differed to infinity. With regard to a few cla.s.ses of actions, the moral judgments of most, though not of all, men have been alike. With regard to others, they have differed, through every shade or degree, from slight diversity to direct opposition.

But this is exactly what we should expect on the principle of utility.

With regard to some actions, the dictates of utility are the same at all times and places, and are so obvious as hardly to admit of mistake or doubt. On the other hand, men's positions in different ages and nations are in many respects widely different; so that what was useful there and then is useless or pernicious here and now. Moreover, since human tastes are various, and human reason is fallible, men's moral sentiments often widely differ in the same positions.

He next alludes to some prevailing misconceptions in regard to utility.

One is the confusion of the _test_ with the _motive_. The general good is the test, or rather the index to the ultimate measure or test, the Divine commands; but it is not in all, or even in most cases, the motive or inducement.

The principle of utility does not demand that we shall always or habitually attend to the general good; although it does demand that we shall not pursue our own particular good by means that are inconsistent with that paramount object. It permits the pursuit of our own pleasures as pleasure. Even as regards the good of others, it commonly requires us to be governed by partial, rather than by general benevolence; by the narrower circle of family and friends rather than by the larger humanity that embraces mankind. It requires us to act where we act _with the utmost effect_; that is, within the sphere best known to us.

The limitations to this principle, the adjustment of the selfish to the social motives, of partial sympathy to general benevolence, belong to the detail of ethics.

The second misconception of Utility is to confound it with a particular hypothesis concerning the Origin of Benevolence, commonly styled the _selfish system_. Hartley and some others having affirmed that benevolence is not an ultimate fact, but an emanation from self-love, through the a.s.sociation of ideas, it has been fancied that these writers dispute the _existence_ of disinterested benevolence or sympathy. Now, the selfish system, in its literal import, is flatly inconsistent with obvious facts, but this is not the system contended for by the writers in question. Still, this distortion has been laid hold of by the opponents of utility, and maintained to be a necessary part of that system; hence the supporters of utility are styled 'selfish, sordid, and cold-blooded calculators.' But, as already said, the theory of utility is not a theory of _motives_; it holds equally good whether benevolence be what it is called, or merely a provident regard to self: whether it be a simple fact, or engendered by a.s.sociation on self-regard. Paley mixed up Utility with self-regarding _motives_; but his theory of these is miserably shallow and defective, and amounted to a denial of genuine benevolence or sympathy.

Austin's Fifth LECTURE is devoted to a full elucidation of the meanings of Law. He had, at the outset, made the distinction between Laws properly so called, and Laws improperly so called. Of the second cla.s.s, some are closely allied to Laws proper, possessing in fact their main or essential attributes; others are laws only by metaphor. Laws proper, and those closely allied to them among laws proper, are divisible into three cla.s.ses. The first are the _Divine Law_ or Laws. The second is named _Positive Law_ or Positive Laws; and corresponds with Legislation. The third he calls _Positive Morality_, or positive moral rules; it is the same as Morals or Ethics.

Reverting to the definition of Law, he gives the following three essentials:--1. Every law is a _command_, and emanates from a _determinate_ source or another. 2. Every sanction is an eventual evil _annexed to a command_. 3. Every duty supposes a _command_ whereby it is created. Now, tried by these tests, the laws of G.o.d are laws proper; so are positive laws, by which are meant laws established by monarchs as supreme political superiors, by subordinate political superiors, and by subjects, as private persons, in pursuance of legal rights.

But as regards Positive Morality, or moral rules, some have so far the essentials of an _imperative_ law or rule, that they are rules set by men to men. But they are not set by men as political superiors, nor by men as private persons, in pursuance of legal rights; in this respect they differ from positive laws, they are not clothed with legal sanctions.

The most important department of positive morality includes _the laws set or imposed by general opinion_, as for example the laws of honour, and of fashion. Now these are not laws in the strict meaning of the word, because the authors are an _indeterminate_ or uncertain aggregate of persons. Still, they have the closest alliance with Laws proper, seeing that being armed with a sanction, they impose a duty. The persons obnoxious to the sanction generally do or forbear the acts enjoined or forbidden; which is all that can happen under the highest type of law.

The author then refers to Locke's division of law, which, although faulty in the a.n.a.lysis, and inaptly expressed, tallies in the main with what he has laid down.

Of Metaphorical or figurative laws, the most usual is that suggested by the fact of _uniformity_, which is one of the ordinary consequences of a law proper. Such are the laws of nature, or the uniformities of co-existence and succession in natural phenomena.