Mackintosh would have been most at home in a professorial chair. He was, indeed, professor at Haileybury from 1818 to 1824, and spoken of as a probable successor to Brown at Edinburgh. But he could never decidedly concentrate himself upon one main purpose. Habits of procrastination and carelessness about money caused embarra.s.sment which forced him to write hastily. His love of society interfered with study, and his study was spread over an impossible range of subjects.
His great abilities, wasted by these infirmities, were seconded by very wide learning. Macaulay describes the impression which he made at Holland House.[566] He pa.s.sed among his friends as the profound philosopher; the man of universal knowledge of history; of ripe and most impartial judgment in politics; the oracle to whom all men might appeal with confidence, though a little too apt to find out that all sides were in the right. When he went to India he took with him some of the scholastic writers and the works of Kant and Fichte, then known to few Englishmen. One of Macaulay"s experiences at Holland House was a vision of Mackintosh verifying a quotation from Aquinas.[567] It must have been delightful. The ethical "dissertation," however, had to be shortened by omitting all reference to German philosophy, and the account of the schoolmen is cursory. It is easy to see why the suave and amiable Mackintosh appeared to Mill to be a "dandy" philosopher, an unctuous spinner of plat.i.tudes to impose upon the frequenters of Holland House, and hopelessly confused in the attempt to make compromises between contradictory theories. It is equally easy to see why to Mackintosh the thoroughgoing and strenuous Mill appeared to be a one-sided fanatic, blind to the merits of all systems outside the narrow limits of Benthamism, and making even philanthropy hateful. Had Mackintosh lived to read Mill"s _Fragment_, he would certainly have thought it a proof that the Utilitarians were as dogmatic and acrid as he had ever a.s.serted.
Mackintosh"s position in ethics explains Mill"s antagonism. Neither Aquinas nor Kant nor Fichte influenced him. His doctrine is the natural outcome of the Scottish philosophy. Hutcheson had both invented Bentham"s sacred formula, and taught the "Moral Sense" theory which Bentham attacked. To study the morality from the point of view of "inductive psychology" is to study the moral faculty, and to reject the purely "intellectual" system. To a.s.sign the position of the moral faculty in the psychological system is to show its utility. On the other hand, it was the very aim of the school to avoid the sceptical conclusions of Hume in philosophy, and in ethics to avoid the complete identification of morality with utility. There must be a distinction between the judgments, "this is right," and "this is useful"; even "useful to men in general." Hence, on the one hand, morality is immediately dictated by a special sense or faculty, and yet its dictates coincide with the dictates of utility. I have spoken of this view as represented by Dugald Stewart; and Brown had, according to his custom, moved a step further by diminishing the list of original first principles, and making "virtue" simply equivalent to "feelings" of approval and disapproval.[568] Virtue, he said, is useful; the utility "accompanies our moral approbation; but the perception of that utility does not const.i.tute our moral approbation, nor is it necessarily presupposed by it."[569] He compares the coincidence between virtue and utility to Leibniz"s pre-established harmony.[570] The position is familiar. The adaptation of an organism to its conditions may be taken either as an explanation of its development or as a proof of a creative purpose.
Mackintosh takes nearly the same position. Ethical inquiries, he says, relate to "two perfectly distinct subjects." We have the problem of the "criterion" (What is the distinction between right and wrong?) and the problem of the "moral sentiments" (What are the feelings produced by the contemplation of right and wrong?). In treating of the feelings, again, we must avoid the confusion caused in the older philosophy by the reduction of "feeling" to "thought."[571] Reason and sensation are distinct though inseparably combined; and hence, he argues, it is a fallacy to speak with Clarke as if reason could by itself be a motive. An argument to influence conduct must always be in the last resort an appeal to a "feeling."[572] It is idle to tell a man that conduct is infamous unless he _feels_ infamy to be painful.
We have then to ask what are the feelings which prompt to morality. So far as the criterion is concerned, Mackintosh fully agrees with Hume, whose theory that "general utility const.i.tutes a general ground of moral distinctions can never be impugned until some example can be produced of a virtue generally pernicious or a vice generally beneficial."[573] Hume, however, overlooks the "rightful supremacy of the moral faculty over every other principle of human action."
Mackintosh thought that his best service, as he told Macvey Napier,[574] had been his "endeavour to slip in a foundation under Butler"s doctrine of the supremacy of the conscience, which he left baseless." To slip in a foundation is a very delicate operation in logical as in material architecture; and the new foundation seems here to be in danger of inverting the edifice. The "supremacy of conscience"[575] means with him that the "moral sentiments" form a separate cla.s.s. They are the feelings with which we contemplate voluntary actions in general, and therefore those aroused by the character and conduct of the agent. Mackintosh thus takes an aesthetic view of morality. We have a "moral taste" or perception of beauty. The same qualities which make a horse beautiful make him also swift and safe, but we perceive the beauty without thinking of the utility, or rather when we do not think of it. So we admire a hero or martyr for the beauty of his character without reference to his services to us.[576] This moral taste, though not identical with the conscience, becomes "absorbed into it." The conscience differs from the "moral taste" because it acts upon the will. But its supremacy seems to be this quality which it shares with or derives from the taste--its immediate and spontaneous operation. It is, he seems to mean, a direct perception of beauty in character applied to the regulation of conduct. Virtue corresponds to an instinctive and so far ultimate appreciation of beauty of character. Mackintosh insists upon this intrinsic charm of virtue in the language which struck Mill as simply foppish affectation. The pleasure of "benevolence" itself, says Mackintosh, is infinitely superior to the pleasures to which it may lead. Could it become "lasting and intense," it would convert the heart into a heaven.[577] To love virtue, you must love it "for its own sake."[578] The delights of being virtuous (as he interprets the phrase) are greater than any delight from the consequences of virtue.
And he holds up as a model Fletcher of Saltoun, who would "lose his life to serve his country, but would not do a base thing to save it."[579]
How, then, is this view to be reconciled with the unreserved admission of "utility" as the "criterion" of right and wrong? One answer is that Mackintosh fully accepts Hartley"s doctrine of a.s.sociation. He even criticises previous philosophers for not pushing it far enough. He says that a.s.sociation, instead of merely combining a "thought" and a "feeling," "forms them into a new compound, in which the properties of the component parts are no longer discoverable, and which may itself become a substantive principle of human virtue."[580] The question of origin, therefore, is different from the question of nature. He follows Hartley in tracing the development of various desires, and in showing how the "secondary desires" are gradually formed from the primitive by transference to different objects.[581] We must start from feelings which lie beneath any intellectual process, and thus the judgment of utility is from the first secondary. We arrive at the higher feelings which are "as independent as if they were underived,"[582] and yet, as happiness has been involved at every stage as an end of each desire, it is no wonder that the ultimate result should be to make the general happiness the end. The coincidence, then, of the criterion with the end of the moral sentiments is "not arbitrary," but arises necessarily from "the laws of human nature and the circ.u.mstances in which mankind are placed."[583] Hence we reach the doctrine which "has escaped Hartley as well as every other philosopher."[584] That doctrine is that the moral faculty is one; it is compound, indeed, in its origin; but becomes an independent unit, which can no longer be resolved even in thought into its const.i.tuent elements.
The doctrine approximates, it would seem, to Mill"s; but was all the more unpalatable to him on that account. The agreement implies plagiarism, and the difference hopeless stupidity. To Mill Bentham was the legitimate development of Hartley, while to Mackintosh Bentham was the plausible perverter of Hartley. Mill regarded Mackintosh as a sophist, whose aim was to mislead honest Utilitarians into the paths of orthodoxy, and who also ignored the merits of Mill himself. "It was Mr. Mill," he says, "who first made known the great importance of the principle of the indissoluble a.s.sociation";[585] "Mr. Mill" who had taken up Hartley"s speculations and "prosecuted the inquiry to its end";[586] "Mr. Mill" who explained affections and motives and dispositions;[587] and "Mr. Mill" who had cleared up mistakes about cla.s.sification which "had done more to perpetuate darkness on the subject of mind than any other cause, perhaps than all other causes taken together."[588] Sir James blundered because he had not read Mill"s book, as he pretended to have done. Mill does not say all this from vanity; he is simply stating an obvious matter of fact.
Mill"s polemic against the Moral Sense theory, even against a moral sense produced by a.s.sociation, reveals the really critical points of the true Utilitarian doctrine. Mill would cut down the moral sense root and branch. The "moral sense" means a "particular faculty"
necessary to discern right and wrong. But no particular faculty is necessary to discern "utility."[589] Hence the distinction between the "criterion" and the "moral sentiments" is absurd. The utility is not the "criterion" of the morality but itself const.i.tutes the morality.
To say that conduct is right, according to the Utilitarians, is the same thing as to say that it produces happiness. If the moral sense orders conduct opposed to the criterion, it is so far bad. If it never orders such conduct, it is superfluous. Happiness, as with Bentham, is a definite thing--a currency of solid bullion; and "virtue" means nothing except as calculated in this currency. Mill, again, like Bentham, regards the "utility" principle as giving the sole "objective" test. The complaint that it sanctions "expediency" is a simple fallacy.
If you do not love virtue "for its own sake," said Mackintosh, you will break a general law wherever the law produces a balance of painful consequences. Mill replies with great vigour.[590] All general rules, it is true, imply exceptions, but only when they conflict with the supreme rule. "There is no exception to a rule of morality," says Mill, "but what is made by a rule of morality."[591] There are numerous cases in which the particular laws conflict; and one law must then be broken. The question which to break must then be decided by the same unequivocal test, "utility." If a rule for increasing utility diminishes utility in a given case, it must be broken in that case.
Mackintosh"s Fletcher of Saltoun ill.u.s.trates the point.[592] What is the "base" thing which Fletcher would not do to save his country?
Would he not be the basest of men if he did not save his country at any cost? To destroy half a population and reduce the other half to misery has been thought a sacrifice not too great for such an end.
Would not Mackintosh himself allow Fletcher, when intrusted with an important fortress, to sacrifice the lives and properties of innocent people in defence of his position?[593] What, then, does the love of virtue "for its own sake" come to? If you refuse to save your country, because you think the means base, your morality is mischievous, that is, immoral. If, on the other hand, you admit that the means cease to be base, the supposed supremacy is an empty brag. The doctrine is then verbally maintained, but interpreted so as to conform to the criterion of utility. In other words, Mackintosh cannot reconcile his admission of utility as a "criterion" with his support of a moral sense ent.i.tled to override the criterion. Mackintosh"s moral sense is meant to distinguish the moral motive from "expediency." To this, again, Mill has a very forcible answer. A man is blameable who makes exceptions to laws in his own private interest. But if a man consistently and invariably acted for the "greatest happiness of the greatest number,"
and paid no more attention to his own happiness than to other people"s, he would certainly have a very lofty and inflexible test, a.s.suming--as we must allow Mill to a.s.sume--that we can calculate the effect of conduct upon happiness at large. Again, upon the a.s.sumption that "moral" is equivalent to "felicific," we get a general rule ent.i.tled to override any individual tastes or fancies, such as Mill supposes to be meant by the "Moral Sense." The rule is derived from the interests of all, and gives an ultimate "objective criterion." J.
S. Mill, describing his father"s system, observes that the teaching of such a man was not likely to err on "the side of laxity or indulgence."[594] It certainly did not. And, in fact, his criterion, however obtained, had in his eyes the certainty of a scientific law.
This or that is right as surely as this or that food is wholesome. My taste has nothing to do with it. And, moreover, the criterion certainly gives a moral ground. If I know that any conduct will produce more happiness than misery that is a moral reason for adopting it. A "moral sense" which should be radically inconsistent with that criterion, which should order me to inflict suffering as suffering, or without some ulterior reason, would be certainly at fault. Mackintosh indeed would have agreed to this, though, if Mill was right, at the expense of consistency.
Mill, however, deduces from his criterion doctrines which involve a remarkable paradox. The mode in which he is led to them is characteristic of the whole method. Mill, like Bentham, puts morality upon the same plane with law. Conduct is influenced either by the "community in its conjunct capacity"--that is, by law; or by "individuals in their individual capacity"--that is, by morality.[595]
The sanction of one, we may infer, is force; of the other, approval and disapproval. With this we must take another Benthamite doctrine, of which I have already spoken.[596] "Mr. Bentham demonstrated," says Mill, "that the morality of an act does not depend upon the motive,"
and, further, that it "is altogether dependent on the intention."[597]
Upon this he constantly insists. Mackintosh"s view that virtue depends upon motive will be "scorned by every man who has any knowledge of the philosophy of the human mind.... The virtue does not depend upon the motive. There is no bad motive. Every motive is the desire of good; to the agent himself or to some one else."[598] He gives an a.n.a.lysis of action to put the point beyond doubt. Action supposes a "motive," a "volition," and an "external act" or muscular contraction. So far there is nothing moral. But then an act has consequences, good or bad, to human beings, which const.i.tute its utility. To make it moral, the agent must antic.i.p.ate "beneficial consequences," and must have no reason to antic.i.p.ate a balance of evil consequences. Intention means the calculation of consequences, and without that calculation there can be no morality.[599] Hence the morality is equivalent to a "conviction of the general utility" of the action.[600] "All this," he concludes, "is settled by universal consent. It is vain, therefore, to think of disputing it." One may, however, ask what it means. I have already observed that the view of the non-moral character of motive was a natural corollary from the purely legal point of view. I must now consider the results of applying it unreservedly in the inappropriate sphere of ethics.
In the first place, the denial of any moral quality in motive seems to be inconsistent with Mill"s own principles. The Utilitarian, according to him, holds that the moral law is essentially the statement that certain conduct produces general happiness. If, then, we ask, Who is a good man? we first reply that he is a man whose conduct produces happiness. Another conclusion is obviously necessary, and is implied in Mill"s statement that the "intention" is essential to morality. The man, that is, must foresee that his conduct will produce happiness.
The "calculation" is precisely what makes an action moral as well as accidentally useful. In other words, the man is good to whom the knowledge that an act will produce happiness is the same thing as a command to perform the act. The "intention" could not affect conduct without the corresponding motive, and Mill can at times recognise the obvious consequence. The "physical law" (meaning the law enforced by physical coercion), he says incidentally, has "extrinsic"
sanctions;[601] the moral law is different, because it sanctions good actions for their goodness. "Moral approval" must therefore include approval of character. A man, to be moral, must be one who does useful things simply because they are useful. He must then, it would seem, be at least benevolent. The same thing is implied by the doctrine of "intention" or "calculation." An action may be useful or the reverse without being moral when the consequences are unknown to the agent. To make it moral he must know the consequences--for otherwise he is merely acting at random; and the foreseen consequences const.i.tute the "intention." To this Mill adds that he must have taken into account the consequences which "might have been foreseen."[602] Otherwise we should have to excuse a man because he had neglected to calculate, whereas to calculate is the very essence of virtue. A man who fired a gun down a crowded street would not be excusable because he had not thought of the result. He "ought" to have thought of it. The question of moral approval of any given action turns upon these questions. Did a man foresee evil consequences and disregard them? He is then cruel.
Did he neglect to consider them? He is then culpably careless, though not actually malignant. Were the consequences altogether beyond the powers of reasonable calculation? Then he may be blameless. The whole moral question, therefore, depends upon the character indicated; that is, upon the motives which induce a man to calculate consequences and which determine his conduct when the calculation is made.
The truth is, I think, and it is characteristic of Mill"s modes of a.n.a.lysis, that he is making an impossible abstraction. He is separating parts of a single process and treating them as independent.
If actions are bad because they have bad consequences, motives are bad because they are causes of bad actions. You cannot suppress the effect without suppressing the cause, and therefore the cause of the cause.
Mill relies chiefly upon one argument. The same conduct will produce the same consequences whatever the motives. That is undeniable. It is the same to me whether I am burnt because the persecutor loves my soul or because he hates me as a rebel to his authority. But when is conduct "the same"? If we cla.s.sify acts as the legislator has to cla.s.sify them by "external" or "objective" relations, we put together the man who is honest solely from fear of the gallows and the man who is honest from hatred of stealing. So long as both act alike, the "consequences" to their neighbours are alike. Neither is legally punishable. But if acts are cla.s.sified by their motives, one is a rogue and the other virtuous; and it is only then that the question of morality properly arises. In that case, it is idle to separate the question of motive and consequences, because the character determines the motive and therefore the action. n.o.body should have seen this more clearly than Mill as a good "determinist." Conduct and character are related as the convex and concave of the curve; conduct is simply the manifestation of character, and to separate them is absurd.
Why did he not see this? For reasons, I think, which ill.u.s.trate his whole method. From a scientific point of view, the ethical problem raises the wide questions, What are the moral sentiments? and, What functions do they discharge in regard to the society or to its individual members? We might hold that morality is justified by "utility" in the sense that the moral rules and the character which they indicate are essential to the welfare of the race or its individual const.i.tuents. But to Mill this proposition is interpreted as identical with the proposition that conduct must be estimated by its "consequences." We are to consider not the action itself, but its effects; and the effects are clearly independent of the motive when once the action has been done. We may therefore get a calculus of "utility": general rules stating what actions will be useful considered abstractedly from their motives. The method, again, might be plausible if we could further a.s.sume that all men were the same and differed only in external circ.u.mstances. That is the point of view to which Mill, like Bentham, is always more or less consciously inclining. The moral and the positive law are equally enforced by "sanctions"; by something not dependent upon the man himself, and which he is inclined to suppose will operate equally upon all men.
Such language could be justifiable only of an average and uniform "man," a kind of constant unit, whose varying behaviour must always be explained by difference in circ.u.mstance. We have sufficiently seen the results elsewhere, and in this ethical doctrine they are especially manifest.
Mackintosh recognised the fact that morality is essentially a function of character. Mill cannot fully admit that, because he virtually a.s.sumes all character to be the same. Regarding morality as something co-ordinate with law, he does not perceive that the very possibility of law implies the moral instincts, which correspond to the const.i.tution of character, and belong to a sphere underlying, not on the same plane with, the legislative sphere. They are the source of all order; not themselves the product of the order. It is impossible to deduce them, therefore, from the organisation which presupposes them. Now, in one direction, Mill"s theory leads, as his son remarked, not to laxity but to excessive strictness. The "criterion" is laid down absolutely. The "moral sense" is rejected because it means an autocratic faculty, ent.i.tled to override the criterion by its own authority. To appeal to "motives" is to allow the individual to make his own feeling the ultimate test of right and wrong. If we follow Mill in this we are not really a.s.suming the moral neutrality of motive or the indifference, but an impossible profession of character. Men are not governed by abstract principles but by their pa.s.sions and affections. The emotions, as Mackintosh rightly said, cannot be resolved into the mere logic. Utility may give the true criterion of morality, but it does not follow that the perception of utility is implied in moral conduct. The motives are good which in fact produce useful conduct, though the agent does not contemplate the abstract principle. It is impossible that men should be moved simply by a desire for the "greatest happiness of the greatest number." What does and always must guide men is their personal relation to the little circle which they actually influence. The good man is the man so const.i.tuted that he will spontaneously fulfil his duties. The moral law, that is, will be also the law of his character and conduct. The mother is good because she loves her child, not because she sees that care of her child is dictated by the general maxim of utility. The "utility" of character means the fitness of the agent to be an efficient member of the social structure to which he belongs. In particular cases this may lead to such problems as that of Fletcher of Saltoun. His sense of honour and his general benevolence, though both useful, might come into collision; and the most difficult of all questions of casuistry arise from such conflicts between private and public affections. Mill is justified in holding that a sense of honour cannot give an ultimate and autocratic decision. Under some pretext or other, we shall have to ask the Utilitarian question whether on the whole it may not be causing more misery than the virtuous action is worth. But that only means that the character must be so balanced as to give due weight to each motive; not that we can abstract from character altogether, as though human beings could be mere colourless and uniform atoms, embodying abstract formulae.
Mill is following Bentham, and only brings out more clearly the psychological a.s.sumptions. A man, he says, acts from the "same motive"
whether he steals five shillings or earns it by a day"s labour. The motive, in this sense, regards only one consequence, whereas the "intention" regards all. The "motive," that is, is only one of the motives or a part of the character, and this way of speaking is one of the awkward results of turning "motives" into "things." The obvious answer is that which Mill himself makes to Mackintosh. Mackintosh and Butler, he thinks, personify particular "appet.i.tes."[603] It is not really the "conscience" which decides, but the man. That is quite true, and similarly it is the whole man who steals or works, not the "personified" motive; and it is accordingly from the whole character that we judge. We have to consider the relation of the love of five shillings to the other qualities of industry and honesty. The same view appears in Mill"s characteristic dislike of "sentimentalism."
Wishing to attack Mackintosh"s rhetoric about the delight of virtuous feeling, he for once quotes a novel to ill.u.s.trate this point. When Parson Adams defined charity as a "generous disposition to relieve the distressed," Peter Pounce approved; "it is, as you say, a disposition, and does not so much consist in the act as in the disposition to do it."[604] When, therefore, Mackintosh says that he finds it difficult to separate the virtue from the act, Mill replies that nothing is easier. The virtue is "in the act and its consequences"; the feeling a mere removable addition. Apparently he would hold that the good Samaritan and the Pharisee had the same feeling, though it prompted one to relieve the sufferer and the other to relieve himself of the sight of the sufferer. They had, of course, a feeling in common, but a feeling which produced diametrically opposite effects, because entering into totally different combinations.
If Mill"s doctrine leads to an impossible strictness in one direction, it leads to less edifying results in another. We have omitted "motive"
and come to the critical question, How, after all, is the moral code to be enforced? By overlooking this question and declaring "motive" to be irrelevant, we get the paradox already accepted by Bentham. His definition of virtue is action for the good of others as well as of ourselves. In what way is the existence of such action to be reconciled with this doctrine? What are the motives which make men count the happiness of others to be equally valuable with their own?
or, in the Utilitarian language, What is the "sanction" of morality?
After all Bentham"s insistence upon the "self-preference principle"
and Mill"s account of selfishness in his political theory, we are suddenly told that morality means a lofty and rigid code in which the happiness of all is the one end. Here again Mill is entangled by the characteristic difficulty of his psychology. To a.n.a.lyse is to divide objects into separate units. When he has to do with complex objects and relations apparently reciprocal, he is forced to represent them by a simple sequence. The two factors are not mutually dependent but distinct things somehow connected in time. One result is his account of "ends" or "motives" (the two, as he observes, are synonymous).[605]
The end is something to be gained by the act, the "a.s.sociation" of which with the act const.i.tutes a "desire." This, we have seen, always refers to the future.[606] In acting, then, I am always guided by calculations of future pleasures or pains. I believe this to be one of the most unfortunate because one of the most plausible of Utilitarian fallacies. If we are determined by pains and pleasures, it is in one sense as contradictory to speak of our being determined by future pains and pleasures as to speak of our being nourished to-day by to-morrow"s dinner. The "future pleasure" does not exist; the antic.i.p.ated pleasure acts by making the present action pleasant; and we then move (as it is said) along the line of least resistance.
Certain conduct is intrinsically pleasurable or painful, and the future pleasure only acts through the present foretaste. When, however, we regard the pleasure as future and as somehow a separable thing, we can only express these undeniable facts by accepting a purely egoistic conclusion. We are, of course, moved by our own feelings, as we breathe with our own lungs and digest with our own stomachs. But when we accept the doctrine of "ends" this harmless and self-evident truth is perverted into the statement that our "end" must be our own pleasure; that we cannot be really or directly unselfish.
The a.n.a.lysis, indeed, is so defective that it can hardly be applied intelligibly. Hume observes that no man would rest his foot indifferently upon a stool or a gouty toe. The action itself of giving pain would be painful, and cannot be plausibly resolved into an antic.i.p.ation of an "end." This, again, is conspicuously true of all the truly social emotions. Not only the conscience, but the sense of shame or honour, or pride and vanity act powerfully and instantaneously as present motives without necessary reference to any future results. The knowledge that I am giving pain or causing future pain is intrinsically and immediately painful to the normal human being, and the supposed "a.n.a.lysis" is throughout a fiction. Mill, however, like Bentham, takes it for granted, but perceives more clearly than Bentham the difficulty to which it leads. How, from a theory of pure selfishness, are we to get a morality of general benevolence? The answer is given by the universal "a.s.sociation." We are governed, he holds, by our own emotions; our end is our own pleasure, and we have to consider how this end dictates a desire for general happiness. He expounds with great vigour the process by which the love of friends, children and parents and country may be gradually developed through the a.s.sociation of our pleasures with the fellow-creatures who caused them. J. S. Mill regards his exposition as "almost perfect,"[607] and says that it shows how the "acquired sentiments"--the moral sentiments and so forth--may be gradually developed; may become "more intense and powerful than any of the elements out of which they may have been formed, and may also in their maturity be perfectly disinterested." James Mill declares that the a.n.a.lysis does not affect the reality of the sentiments a.n.a.lysed.
Grat.i.tude remains grat.i.tude, and generosity generosity, just as a white ray remains white after Newton had decomposed it into rays of different colours.[608] Here once more we have the great principle of indissoluble a.s.sociation or mental chemistry.
Granting that the emotions so generated may be real, we may still ask whether the a.n.a.lysis be sufficient. James Mill"s account of the way in which they are generated leaves a doubt. Morality is first impressed upon us by authority. Our parents praise and blame, reward and punish. Thus are formed a.s.sociations of praise and blame with certain actions. Then, we form further a.s.sociations with the causes of praise and blame and thus acquire the sentiments of "praiseworthiness" and "blameworthiness." The sensibility to praise and blame generally forms the "popular sanction," and this, when praiseworthiness is concerned, becomes the moral sanction.[609] Here we see that morality is regarded as somehow the product of a "sanction"; that is, of the action of praise and blame with their usual consequences upon the individual.
His sensibility causes him through a.s.sociation to acquire the habits which generally bring praise and blame; and ultimately these qualities become attractive for their own sake. The difficulty is to see where the line is crossed which divides truly moral or altruistic conduct from mere prudence. Admitting that a.s.sociation may impel us to conduct which involves self-sacrifice, we may still ask whether such conduct is reasonable. a.s.sociation produces belief in error as well as in truth. If I love a man because he is useful and continue to love him when he can no longer be useful, am I not misguided? If I wear a ragged coat, because it was once smart, my conduct is easily explained as a particular kind of folly. If I am good to my old mother when she can no longer nurse me, am I not guilty of a similar folly? In short, a man who inferred from Mill"s principles that he would never do good without being paid for it, would be hardly inconsistent. Your a.s.sociations, Mill would say, are indissoluble. He might answer, I will try--it is surely not so hard to dissolve a tie of grat.i.tude!
Granting, in short, that Mill gives an account of such virtue as may be made of enlightened self-interest, he does not succeed in making intelligible the conduct which alone deserves the name of virtuous.
The theory always halts at the point where something more is required than an external sanction, and supposes a change of character as well as a wider calculation of personal interest.
The imperfection of this theory may be taken for granted. It has been exposed by innumerable critics. It is more important to observe one cause of the imperfection. Mill"s argument contains an element of real worth. It may be held to represent fairly the historical development of morals. That morality is first conceived as an external law deriving its sanct.i.ty from authority; that it is directed against obviously hurtful conduct; and that it thus serves as a protection under which the more genuine moral sentiments can develop themselves, I believe to be in full accordance with sound theories of ethics. But Mill was throughout hampered by the absence of any theory of evolution. He had to represent a series of changes as taking place in the individual which can only be conceived as the product of a long and complex social change. He is forced to represent the growth of morality as an accretion of new "ends" due to a.s.sociation, not as an intrinsic development of the character itself. He has to make morality out of atomic sensations and ideas collected in cl.u.s.ters and trains without any distinct reference to the organic const.i.tution of the individual or of society, and as somehow or other deducible from the isolated human being, who remains a constant, though he collects into groups governed by external sanctions. He sees that morality is formed somehow or other, but he cannot show that it is either reasonable or an essential fact of human nature. Here, again, we shall see what problem was set to his son. Finally, if Mill did not explain ethical theory satisfactorily, it must be added in common justice that he was himself an excellent example of the qualities for which he tried to account. A life of devotion to public objects and a conscientious discharge of private duties is just the phenomenon for which a cl.u.s.ter of "ideas" and "a.s.sociations" seems to be an inadequate account. How, it might have been asked, do you explain James Mill? His main purpose, too, was to lay down a rule of duty, almost mathematically ascertainable, and not to be disturbed by any sentimentalism, mysticism, or rhetorical foppery. If, in the attempt to free his hearers from such elements, he ran the risk of reducing morality to a lower level and made it appear as unamiable as sound morality can appear, it must be admitted that in this respect too his theories reflected his personal character.
FOOTNOTES:
[464] For an account of these writers and their relation to the pre-revolutionary schools, see _Les Ideologues_ by F. Picavet (1891).
[465] Macvey Napier"s _Correspondence_, p. 424.
[466] Charles Francois Dominique de Villers (1767-1815) was a French officer, who emigrated in 1792, and took refuge at Lubeck. He became profoundly interested in German life and literature, and endeavoured to introduce a knowledge of German speculation to his countrymen. His chief books were this exposition of Kant and an essay upon the _Reformation of Luther_ (1803), which went through several editions, and was translated by James Mill in 1805. An interesting account of Villers is in the _Biographie Universelle_.
[467] See c.o.c.kburn"s _Memorials_ for a good notice of this.
[468] Stewart"s _Works_, iv. 345.
[469] Lady Holland"s _Life of Smith_, ii. 388.
[470] _Inquiry into the Relations of Cause and Effect_ (third edition), pp. 178, 180, and part iv. sec. 6.
[471] _Examination of Hamilton_ (fourth edition), p. 379.
[472] _Cause and Effect_, pp. 184-87.
[473] _Cause and Effect_, p. 197.
[474] _Ibid._ p. 239 _seq._
[475] _Ibid._ p. 244.
[476] _Ibid._ p. 150.
[477] _Ibid._ p. 357.
[478] _Cause and Effect_, p. 313.
[479] _Cause and Effect_, p. 482. Brown thinks that we can logically disprove the existence of motion by the hare and tortoise argument, and should therefore disregard logic.