theses of "good" and "bad," "right" and "wrong," with which psychology, as it treats of what is and not of what ought to be, is not directly concerned. The two antitheses just mentioned are frequently regarded as identical. And in fact it does not matter for ordinary purposes whether we speak of "right" or "good" conduct, "wrong" or "bad" motives. Reflection, however, will show that the common notion of what is Good for a human being-even if we restrict it to what is "ultimately" good, or "good in itself," and not merely as a means to some further end-includes more than the common notion of what is Right for him, or his Duty: it includes also his Interest or Happiness. No doubt it is commonly believed that it will be ultimately best for a man to do his duty, and that this will promote his real Interest or Happiness; but it does not follow that the notions of duty and interest are to be identified, or even that the inseparable connection between the two may be scientifically known and demonstrated. This connection, indeed, is often, by modern thinkers, regarded rather as a matter of faith ;-as something providentially left obscure, in order that duty may be done as duty, and not from a mere calculation of self-love. Thus we arrive at another conception of Ethics, in which it is thought to be concerned primarily with the general rules of Duty or Right Action-sometimes called the Moral Code-viewed as absolutely binding on every man, and properly to be obeyed by him without regard to his personal interests; the relation of duty to the agent's private happiness being regarded as a matter of secondary concern from an ethical point of view. On this view the study connects itself in a new way with theology, so far as the rules of duty are regarded as a code of divine legislation. Further, as we shall see, it has a close affinity to abstract jurisprudence, so far as this is conceived to treat of rules of Law cognisable by reason as naturally and universally valid, and accordingly not dependent on human legislation for their claim to be enforceable by judicial punishment; since such jural rules must always constitute an important part -though not the whole of the Moral Code. We might contrast this as a modern view of ethics with the view before given, which was that primarily taken in ancient Greek philosophy generally1-the transition from the one to the other being due chiefly to the influence of Christianity, but partly also to that of Roman jurisprudence. It is true that the thought of "the gods' unwritten and unfaltering law" was not by any means absent from the moral reflection of Greece; still, the idea of Law was not taken as the ultimate and fundamental notion in the ancient ethical systems. These proceed on the assumption that man, as a reasonable being, must seek his own highest good in this earthly life, and therefore that any laws he has to obey must be shown to be means to the attainment of this good, or particulars in which it is realised. On this point the change produced by Christianity is more striking if we consider its effects on mankind generally, than if we only regard its influence on the minds that were most completely penetrated by its religious spirit. For the true Christian saint lived even on earth, no less than the pagan philosopher, a life which he regarded as intrinsically preferable to all other modes of earthly exist 1 This statement requires some qualification as applied to Stoicism; through which, in fact, as will presently appear, the transition was partly made from the ancient to the modern manner of thought. See ch. ii. §§ 15 and 19, and ch. iv. § 1. § 5. Ethics Natural lavs maality ence; and, like the Platonic philosopher, a life of which practical virtue was not so much the essence as the outward expression. Still even for the saint this earthly life afforded but an imperfect foretaste of the bliss for which he hoped; and in the view of more ordinary Christians, the ultimate good of man vanished from the scrutiny of mere ethical speculation into the indefinite brightness of a future life of happiness, supernaturally bestowed by God as a reward for obedience to His laws. Or rather, perhaps, by the mass of Christians, the moral code was more commonly regarded, in still closer analogy to human legislation, as supported by penal sanctions; since in all ages of Christianity the fear of the pains of hell has probably been a more powerful motive to draw men from vice than the hope of the pleasures of heaven. On either view the ultimate weal or ill of human beings became something that might be imagined and rhetorically described, but not definitely known or scientifically investigated; and thus the subject-matter of Ethics. defined itself afresh as Moral Law, a body of rules absolutely prescribed, and supplying a complete guidance for human conduct, though not claiming to contain an exhaustive statement of human good. Within the Christian Church, through the earlier ages of its history, the rules of morality were commonly held to be known in the main, if not altogether-by Revelation and not by mere Reason; and hence it naturally fell to theologians to expound, and to priests to administer, this code of divine legislation. But when a more philosophical treatment of ethics was introduced by the schoolmen, the combination in the code of two elements-one distinctively Christian, and the other cognisable by natural reason, and binding on all men apart from revelation-began to be clearly seen; and an adequate theory of this second element seemed to be supplied by the development of theoretical jurisprudence that followed on the revival, in the 12th century, of the study of Roman law. In the later treatment of legal principles in Rome, the notion of a law of nature had become prominent; and this notion was naturally and easily adapted to represent the element in morality that was independent of revelation. It is true that the natural law with which the philosophical jurists were concerned did not relate to right conduct generally, but only to such right actions (or abstinences) as are required to satisfy the rightful claims of others; hence it could not properly be identified with more than a portion of the moral code. This portion, however, is of such fundamental importance that the distinction just noticed was often overlooked or treated as subordinate by medieval and early modern thinkers; the notion of Natural Law was taken as coincident with Morality generally so far as cognisable by Reason and regulative of outward conduct. Moral Faculty. It is chiefly in connection with this jural view of morality Origin of that the inquiry into the origin of the moral faculty has occupied a prominent place in the modern treatment of Ethics. So long as the principle in man that governs or ought to govern is regarded merely as the faculty of knowing our true good, together with its main causes or conditions, it hardly seems important to inquire how this faculty originated, any more than it is important for a geometer to investigate the origin of the spatial faculty. But when the moral faculty had come to be conceived as Conscience, i.e. as a faculty cognisant of rules absolutely binding, to be obeyed without reference to the agent's apparent interest-a kind of legislator within the man that claims unquestioned and unconditional Free Will. Summary view of Ethics. supremacy over all other springs of action-it was to be expected that the legitimacy of its claim would be challenged and seriously investigated; and it is not hard to understand how this legitimacy is thought to depend on the "originality' of the faculty-that is, on its being a part of the plan or type according to which human nature was originally constructed. Hence investigations into the moral condition of children and savages, and even animals, and more or less conjectural theories of the soul's growth and development, have been commonly regarded as necessary appendages or introductions to modern ethical discussion. So again, it is through the jural conception of Ethics that the controversy on free will chiefly becomes important. A plain man does not naturally inquire whether he is "free" or not to seek his own good, provided only he knows what it is, and that it is attainable by voluntary action. But when his conduct is compared with a code to the violation of which punishments are attached, the question whether he really could obey the rule by which he is judged is obvious and inevitable, since if he could not, it seems contrary to justice to punish him. To sum up the subject of Ethics, most comprehensively understood, includes (1) an investigation of the constituents and conditions of the Good or Wellbeing of men considered individually, which chiefly takes the form of an examination into the general nature and particular species of (a) Virtue or (b) Pleasure, and the chief means of realising these ends; (2) an investigation of the principles and most important details of Duty or the Moral Law (so far as this is distinguished from Virtue); (3) some inquiry into the nature and origin of the Faculty by which duty is recognised and, more generally, into the part taken by Intellect in human action, |