According to the teleological view, the ultimate ground of moral distinctions is to be sought in the effects which acts naturally tend to produce. That is, morality realizes a purpose, is a means to an end, and owes its existence to its utility. Intuitionism maintains that morality is intuitive, that the moral law is engraven on the heart of man, that it is not imposed upon him from without, but springs from his innermost essence.

Now these two views are by no means antithetical, as is so often declared, but may be easily harmonized. In the first place, the end realized by morality is one absolutely desired by human beings. An act is right because it produces a certain effect upon human nature, because, in the last analysis, humanity approves of that effect.1 We cannot ultimately justify it except on the ground of its effect upon man. It is good because man acknowledges it as a good, because he is by nature so constituted as to be compelled to acknowledge it as a good. In a certain sense, Kant is right in saying that nothing in this world is good except a good will, and that a good will is good simply by virtue of its volition. The highest good, or the end realized by the moral law, is an absolute good, a good unconditionally desired by the human will, one for which no other ground can be found, one whose goodness inheres in itself. A particular act is good because of the end which it tends to realize, but the end is good in itself, good

1 See chap. v, § 8, § 9 (c).

because man wills it. In this sense, there is a categorical imperative in the heart of man, an imperative that is no longer hypothetical, but unconditional.1 In this sense, too, morality is imposed upon man by himself: it is the expression of his own innermost

essence.

In the second place, we may say, as we have already said, that an act is good or bad because conscience declares it to be so.2 The agent evaluates as he does because the contemplation of the act produces a certain effect upon his consciousness, because it arouses certain emotions in him, because conscience pronounces judgment upon it. This statement by no means contradicts the statement that the effect of the act is the final criterion of its moral worth. The intuitionist must grant that the acts approved by conscience produce good effects or realize the highest good for man, and that its function is to help man to attain his goal. The theological intuitionist must admit that conscience approves of forms of conduct enjoined by God on account of their consequences, that conscience is the representative of God in the human heart, placed there in order to serve the purpose of the Creator with reference to man. In every instance, conscience is supposed to serve a purpose, to accomplish something for man, to produce effects; otherwise, why should it exist? There is really no controversy between the intuition

1 See chap. v, § 2; also chap. ii, § 7 (1).

2 Chap. v, § 1.

Both may

ist and the teleologist on this point. agree that conscience is a means to an end, and that this end, in some way, accounts for its existence. The question concerning the origin of conscience will not necessarily affect this view. The teleologist may believe that conscience is innate, or that it is the product of experience, or that it contains both a priori and a posteriori elements, without contradicting his general theory, that morality serves a purpose in the world, and that this purpose is its final ground.

CHAPTER VI

THEORIES OF THE HIGHEST GOOD: HEDONISM1

1. The Standard of Morality and the Highest Good. The conclusion reached in the last chapter was that the effects of acts constitute the ultimate ground of moral distinctions. Acts are, in the last analysis, right or wrong, good or bad, because of the end or purpose which they tend to realize. We have attempted to show what this means and what it does not mean. The question now confronts us, What is this end or purpose at which human conduct aims? Mankind enjoins certain modes of conduct in its moral codes, and insists upon their performance. The end realized by these must, therefore, represent what the race ultimately desires and approves; it must in a measure represent the ideal of the race, or a good. The race desires and approves of the forms of conduct embraced in the moral code, for the sake of the end realized by that code, and desires and approves of the end for its own sake. The end must be something which it desires absolutely, otherwise it would be no end, but a means. Our original question, What is the ground of moral distinctions, may therefore be reduced to this: What is the 1 See references under chap. ii.

highest end, or the highest good, the summum bonum? What is it that mankind strives for, what does it prize above all else, what is its ideal?

2. The Greek Formulation of the Problem. - This is the form in which the ancient Greeks put the problem. They do not analyze moral facts as we do, in order to discover the principles underlying them, but simply inquire into the nature of the highest good. "Every art and every scientific inquiry," says Aristotle, at the beginning of his Nicomachean Ethics, "and similarly every action and purpose, may be said to aim at some good. Hence the good has been defined as that at which things aim. But it is clear that there is a difference in the ends; for the ends are sometimes activities, and sometimes results beyond the mere activities. Also, where there are certain ends beyond the actions, the results are naturally superior to the activities. As there are certain arts and sciences, it follows that the ends are also various. Thus health is the end of medicine, a vessel of ship-building, and wealth of domestic economy.' "1

"What, then, is the good in each of these instances? It is presumably that for the sake of which all else is done. This in medicine is health; in strategy, victory; in domestic architecture, a house; and so on. But in every action and purpose it is the end, as it is for the sake of the end that people all do everything else. If, then, there is a certain end of all action, 1 Bk. I, chap. i.