Page images
PDF
EPUB

Morality, founded purely on sentiment, has inspired the attacks on vivisectors which in all confidence spread evil amongst men.

It is a surprising result of the great complexity of human affairs, that society is sometimes better served by wicked acts than by acts inspired by the most generous feelings. Thus extremely rigorous measures of repression are often more successful than the half-measures employed by humane and charitable administrators.

The intuitive theory of morality has had no greater success than utilitarianism. Even if the sentiment of society were a true basis of moral conduct, it fails in actual practice. On the other hand, although utility is the object of all morality, it is in most cases so difficult to determine what is really useful, that utilitarianism breaks down as the foundation of morality.

We must look elsewhere for principles which can guide us towards right conduct.

II

MORALITY AND HUMAN NATURE

Attempts to found morality on the laws of human nature-
Kant's theory of moral obligation-Some criticisms of the
Kantian theory-Moral conduct must be guided by reason

EVEN in antiquity, there were efforts to find a basis for morality other than the precepts of religion based on revelation, but the failure of such attempts has long been admitted. In the first chapter of The Nature of Man, I described such efforts to find a basis for morality in human nature itself. The Epicureans and the Stoics, although their doctrines were opposed, each claimed to set out from human nature. The principle is too vague for practical use, as human nature can be interpreted in very different fashions.

When several attempts to find a rational basis for morality had failed, Kant's theory appeared and was hailed by many as a real advance. None the less, it has not met with general approval and may be taken as a supreme instance of the failure to solve the great problem of morality by reason. I do not wish to deal with it at length, but a review of its main outlines is pertinent to my argument.

According to Kant, morality cannot be founded on the feeling of sympathy, nor can it have as its object the happiness of men. Nature would have been an unskilful work

man were her object the happiness of human beings, for many lower animals have much more happiness. An inner law is the force compelling us to morality, and without that we should have to seek our guide in happiness.

Kant's doctrine is an intuitive theory of morality. It is based neither on sympathy nor on any inherent charity, which would make us covet happiness for our fellows, but solely on the consciousness of duty. Kant thought that the action of a man who wished to do good to his fellows was devoid of merit. Conduct was moral only in so far as it was obedience to the inner sense of duty. Schiller's epigram has thrown into relief this part of the great philosopher's theory, "When I take pleasure in doing good to my neighbour, I am uneasy, as I fear that I have been lacking in virtue."

In his criticism of Kant's system, Herbert Spencer drew a picture of a world inhabited by men who had no sympathy for their fellows and who did good to them against their natural instincts and only from a pure sense of duty. Spencer thought that such a world would be uninhabitable. Clearly, moral conduct, on the Kantian basis, could be followed only by exceptional persons, for most men follow their inclinations rather than any sense of duty. People of lower culture would accept kindnesses from others without caring whether the motive were kindness or a sense of duty, but highly civilised people would not endure service. from those whom they knew to be acting against their instincts in obedience to a sense of duty. And so men would be driven to hide the real motives of their conduct, lest they should offend the sensibility of those towards whom their moral conduct was directed. Such cases, where the real motive is concealed, show how impossible it is to judge of conduct from the motives which may be supposed

to have inspired it. As it is generally impossible to know whether some altruistic conduct has been inspired by kindness or has been performed as a duty, it is better to give up any attempt to appraise the springs of moral conduct.

Kant himself realised the need of some other standard for appraising human conduct. With such a purpose he arrived at his well-known maxim :-"Let your conduct be such that your motive might serve as a standard of universal application." To explain the maxim he gave a number of examples. A man who is without money and cannot pay a debt is in doubt as to whether he should promise to repay his creditor. According to Kant, he ought to ask himself what would be the result if such a promise were to be made under similar circumstances by everyone. It is plain that if such false promises became universal, they would cease to be believed and so would be impracticable in actual life. Kant's formula, therefore, would supply a rational basis for the discrimination of immoral conduct. In the case of theft it would operate as follows if it became the custom for everyone to take whatever he wanted, private property and theft would simultaneously cease to exist. So also suicide is immoral, since if it became general the human race would cease to exist.

Kant, however, was looking at only one side of the problem. Moral conduct is frequently limited to an individual, and cannot be generalised for all humanity. Thus, for instance, if one about to sacrifice his life for the good of his fellows were to estimate his action according to Kant's formula, he would reach a conclusion similar to that in the case of suicide; if everyone were to sacrifice his life for others, no one would remain alive, and so, according to Kant, the sacrifice of one's life for the good of others would be an immoral act.

It is plain that in his search for a rational basis of morality, Kant found only a hollow form, void of any substantial body of morality. It is not enough that a moral man should take his consciousness of duty as a guide. He must know what would be the result of his acts. If it is immoral to make a false promise, it is because people would lose confidence in such promises, and confidence is necessary to our well-being. When the formula of Kant condemns theft, it is because, if theft became general, there could be no private property, and property is regarded as necessary to the well-being of men. Suicide is immoral, according to Kant, because it would lead to the disappearance of the human race, and human life is of course a good.

Kant tried to found his theory of morality on a rational basis which excluded the idea of the general good, but it was impossible for him to avoid it. His "practical reason," when it raised the consciousness of duty to a principle, should have pointed the goal towards which moral acts were to be directed. In this matter, I find that Kant's ideas are very vague, although extremely interesting.

The innate feeling of duty implies the will to pursue moral conduct. This will is independent of the circumambient conditions. Kant in his nebulous language explains this consideration as follows:-"Our reason informs us of a law to which all our maxims are subject, as if our will had created its own natural order of things. This law, then, is in the sphere of a nature which we do not know empirically but which the freedom of the will makes possible, a nature which is supra-sensible, but which from the practical point of view we make objective, because it is created by our will in virtue of our existence as rational beings. The difference between the laws of a nature to which the will is subject and a nature subject to the will subsists in

« PreviousContinue »