"We judge always the inner spring of action, as distinguished from its outward operation," says Martineau; or, as Pradley puts it,1Acts in so far as they spring from the good will are good." And Kant holds, "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a Good Will.” "A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of a proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself." 2

Let us analyze this view.

(a) An act is good because it is prompted by a good will. But, we ask, what is a good will? Is there any such thing as an absolute good will? If not, what is the criterion of its goodness? A good will is a will that is good for something, a will that tends to realize a certain end or purpose, is it not? To say that a good will is a will that wills the good, is to argue in a circle. What is the good, what is the criterion of goodness? It seems that we need a standard for judging springs of action as much as we need one for judging acts.

(b) No, you say, a good will is one which acts from a sense of duty or respect for the law, regardless of effects, and we call him good whose will is good in this sense. But, we ask, do we really call a man good whose sense of duty prompts him to 2 Abbott's translation, p. 9.

1 Ethical Studies.

8 Kant.

commit crime? Almost every fanatic who has assassinated the ruler of a nation, from Harmodios and Aristogeiton down to the miserable wretch who took the life of the defenceless Queen Elizabeth of Austria, did so from a sense of duty. We cannot call the deeds of these pretended patriots good, even though we may believe that their motives were good, good in the sense that they intended to benefit mankind. The fact is, we judge not only the disposition or motive, but both motive and act, the person and the thing, the subject and the object. When a man's motives are good or pure, we call him subjectively or formally moral; when his act is good, objectively or materially moral.1 To quote Paulsen's example, Saint Crispin stole leather from the rich to make shoes for the poor. His desire was to alleviate suffering, his motives were in a certain sense good. But can we approve of his conduct, or of the conduct of the political assassins who believe that the devil should be fought with his own devilish weapons? Is it right to steal from the rich to benefit the poor; is it right to commit murder even without malice aforethought? Why not? Because theft and murder tend to produce effects subversive of life, because it lies in the very

1"An act is materially good when, in fact, it tends to the interest of the system, so far as we can judge of its tendency, or to the good of some part consistent with the system, whatever were the affections of the agent." "An action is formally good when it flowed from good affection in a just proportion.". Hutcheson. See also Wundt, Paulsen, Jhering, and others.

nature of these acts to breed ruin and destruction. A man, then, may be subjectively moral and objectively immoral, and vice versa. But can we call him truly good or moral when there is a conflict between his motives and his deeds? Should we hold him up to the world as a model, should we admire him as much as one whose motives lead him to the performance of commendable deeds? Nay, should we not rather seek excuses for him? Think of the thousand unfortunates whom the religious fervor of our Catholic forefathers slew for the greater glory of God! We turn over the pages of the history of the Inquisition and shudder to think that the sense of duty should have allied itself with such cruelty, such heartlessness, such inhumanity.

Let us say, then, that the goodness of an act depends upon the effects which it naturally tends to produce, and the goodness of a motive depends upon its tendency to express itself outwardly in good acts. The truly good man not only desires to do right, but does it. The reason why we lay so much stress on right feeling, on the inwardliness of morality, so to speak, is that it is apt to lead to right action. The heart is the citadel of morality, and the pure in heart are apt to be pure in deed. "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also." As Leslie Stephen says: "The moral law has to be expressed in the form, Be this,'

not in the form 'Do this!"" "Regulate a man's feelings or his actions, and you necessarily affect his actions or his feelings. Induce a man not to hate his brother, and he will be slow to kill him; and if you persuade him not to kill, you necessarily limit to some degree the force of his hatred. As it is easier

for the primitive mind to accept the objective than the subjective definition of conduct, the primitive rule takes the corresponding form, and only prescribes qualities of character indirectly by prescribing methods of conduct."1

(c) In a certain sense, however, we must confess, it is the human will which makes the act good. An act is good because of the end or purpose it realizes. This end or purpose is one desired or willed by man, and this ideal, this categorical imperative, as we called it before, is good in itself, absolutely good, that is, good in the sense that no reason can be given for its goodness. Hence we are brought back to an ultimate principle of human nature. The goodness of a particular act depends upon the effect which it tends to produce; and the goodness of a particular motive depends upon the effect which it tends to produce in action, but the effect itself is good because man wills it. Interpreted in this sense, the Kantian view cannot be escaped; in this sense nothing in this world is good except a good will, and a good will is good simply by virtue of its volition.

1 Science of Ethics, chap. iv, iv. See also Wundt, Ethics, Vol. I, chap. i, 2 b, pp. 37 ff.

L

10. The End justifies the Means. The following argument is also urged as a fatal objection to our theory: According to the teleological view, it is maintained, morality is a means to an end. Hence, if the end is good, the means of realizing that end must necessarily be good, which is equivalent to saying that the end justifies the means. And if the end justifies the means, then it is right to commit crime in order to realize a good end. The practical application of this teaching is bound to lead to immorality, which in itself stamps it as false and dangerous.

These statements are full of misconceptions. The theory does not assert that any end which any person may happen to regard as good justifies any means which in that person's opinion will realize the end. It maintains that morality conduces to an end, that this end is the highest end, that this end, as the highest end, is tacitly desired and approved by all mankind. The correct application of such a principle cannot fail to meet the approval of the most moral man in existence. Let us go into details.

(a) This theory does not hold that when once a man has adopted a certain end as good he is justified in doing whatever conduces to it. Nay, we have expressly repudiated this view in our criticism of the "springs-of-action" theory.2 Our theory does not concern itself with the temporary and particular

1 See Paulsen, System of Ethics, in which it is treated in full, and to which I am largely indebted for the following paragraph. 2 See chap. v, § 9.