Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow CHAPTER III: Concerning the Various Degrees of Virtue and Vice, and the Circumstances on which They Depend. - Philosophiae moralis institutio compendiaria with a Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy

Return to Title Page for Philosophiae moralis institutio compendiaria with a Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy

Search this Title:

CHAPTER III: Concerning the Various Degrees of Virtue and Vice, and the Circumstances on which They Depend. - Francis Hutcheson, Philosophiae moralis institutio compendiaria with a Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy [1747]

Edition used:

Philosophiae moralis institutio compendiaria with a Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy, edited and with an Introduction by Luigi Turco (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2007).

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


CHAPTER III

Concerning the Various Degrees of Virtue and Vice, and the Circumstances on which They Depend.

I. That inward power called Conscience, so much talked of, is either this very moral sense {or faculty} we have explained, or includes it as its most essential part; since without this sense we could discern no moral qualities. But when this is presupposed, our reason will shew what external actions are laudable or censurable according as they evidence good or evil affections of soul. Conscience is commonly defined to be a “man’s judgment concerning the morality of his actions”; or his judgment about his actions as to their conformity or contrariety to the law.1 And an action is then said to be imputable, <or matter of praise and censure> when by its proceeding from his will it evidences his temper and affections to be virtuous or vitious.2

The common divisions of conscience, into certain, probable, doubtful, or scrupulous, need no explication. When we deliberate about our future actions ’tis called antecedent: when we judge of past actions, ’tis called subsequent conscience.3

The antecedent conscience of a good man{, or his previous deliberations,} turn upon the tendencies of actions to the general good of all, or to the innocent enjoyments of individuals, {or of parts of this system}: and this tendency makes an action materially good. For actions are called good materially, by their having this tendency, or their being required by the law, whatever were the motives or views of the agent. The subsequent conscience regards chiefly the motives, design, and intention <of past actions>, on which depends what is called formal goodness. For such actions are called formally good as agree with the law in all respects, and flow from good affections.4

II. The circumstances regarded in comparing the morality of actions are of three sorts, as they relate either to the understanding, or to the will, or to the importance of the action itself considered along with the abilities of the agent.

But here ’tis previously certain, that such actions alone are matter of praise or censure, or can be imputed, which are done with knowledge and intention, and which had not happened if we had seriously resolved against them. And that in like manner no omission can be imputed where the most hearty inclination would have been without effect. Such actions or omissions are called free or voluntary, and such alone carry any evidence of the goodness or depravity of the temper. Necessary events therefor, which would happen even without our knowledge, or against our will, are no matter of imputation; nor is the omission of an [a so called] impossibility, which no desire of ours could have accomplished, any matter of imputation. But this is not the case with such actions as are only called necessary on this account, that the agent’s inclination and turn of temper that way, or his passions, were so strong, that during that temper of his he could not will otherways.5 Nor is it the case in omissions of such actions as are therefor only called impossible, because such was the person’s depravity of temper that he could have no inclination to them. Virtue and vice are primarily seated in the temper and affections [habits] themselves; and ’tis generally in our own power in a considerable degree to form and alter our tempers and inclinations.

There are three classes of actions called involuntary, to wit, such as we are compelled to by superior external force; such as we do ignorantly <or erroneously>; and such as are called mixed, when we do what of it self is very disagreeable in order to avoid some greater evil. What men are driven to by external force is imputable only to him who uses the violence. What is done through ignorance is imputed differently according as the ignorance is culpable or not. But the actions called mixed are all imputed, as they are truly free, and proceed from the will: but they are imputed as innocent or as criminal, according as the evil avoided was {in its whole effect} greater or less than the evil done to avoid it. Now moral evils{, and such as hurt the common interest,} are greater than the natural evils{, and such as hurt only the agent}.

III. {As to the circumstances relating to the understanding:} altho’ all moral virtue and vice is primarily seated in the will, yet frequently our ignorance or error about the nature of the things we are employed about may affect the morality of actions. And altho’ the best of men must intend what is in fact evil, if it appear to them to be good <and honourable>; yet such mistakes are frequently blameable, if the error or ignorance was any way voluntary<, and vincible>, what could have been avoided by such diligence as good men commonly use in such cases. That ignorance indeed which is wholly involuntary and invincible excuses from all blame.

Voluntary or vincible ignorance is either affected, when men directly design to avoid knowing the truth with some apprehensions of it: or what arises from gross negligence or sloth; when men have little solicitude about their duty, and take little thought about their conduct. The former no way diminishes the guilt of the action. The latter may be some alleviation of guilt, and that more or less, according as the sloth was greater or less, or the discovery of the truth was more or less difficult.

Ignorance truly involuntary is so either in it self but not in its cause, or it is involuntary in both respects. The former is the case when at present, and in the midst of action, men cannot discover the truth{, tho’ they earnestly desire it}; but had they formerly used the diligence required of good men they might have known it. The latter is the case when no prior culpable negligence occasioned our ignorance: and this sort excuses altogether from guilt, but not the former.6 There is indeed no moral turpitude at present shewn by a man’s acting what at present appears to him to be good; but ignorance or error, tho’ at present invincible, may be a strong evidence of a prior culpable negligence, which may discover a depravity of temper.

Ignorance is either about matter of law [right] or matter of fact. This division takes place chiefly in positive laws <according as the law or the nature of the fact is unknown>: for in the law of nature if the fact, or natural tendency and consequents of actions, beneficial or pernicious to society, are known [carefully examined], this it self makes the laws known.

IV. From these principles we may answer the chief questions about an erroneous conscience. 1. Error or ignorance of the law of nature is generally culpable; but in very various degrees, according to the different degrees of natural sagacity in men, and their different opportunities of information and inquiry, and as the laws themselves are more or less easy to be discovered.

2. To counteract conscience in doing what we deem vitious, or in omitting what we take to be our duty, must always be evil; as it shews such depravation of the temper that a sense of duty is not the ruling principle. But this guilt too is of very different degrees, according to the sanctity of the several duties omitted, or the turpitude of crimes we commit; and the different sorts of motives, more or less favourable, which excited us to this conduct. For sometimes ’tis only the terrour of the most formidable evils which almost enforce us, sometimes lovely principles of friendship, gratitude, filial duty, parental affection, or even love of a country, which induce us to act against our consciences; now in such cases the guilt is considerably alleviated.

3. In following an erroneous conscience, the guilt consists not in thus following it, or doing what we deem to be our duty; but it lies rather in something culpable in the error it self, or in the causes of it, and this in various degrees. For some errors of themselves shew a base temper, influenced directly by malice, pride, or cruelty: others shew only negligence and inattention, or that the nobler affections of heart are too weak.

4. ’Tis generally true that counteracting even an erroneous conscience is worse than following it. In both cases the guilt of the error is equal; and he who counteracts his conscience shews also <a poor concern for what is honourable and> a new contempt of the divine law. And yet where some of the more humane and lovely dispositions carry it against the commands of an erroneous conscience, guided rather by authority, and some confused <and deceitful> notions of duty, than any distinct view of moral excellence {in what it commands}, the disobeying it may be a better sign of the temper [a sign of a better temper] than following its dictates. {As in the case of one who deems it his duty to persecute for Religion, and yet is restrained from it by humanity and compassion.}7

V. The circumstances affecting the morality of actions which relate to the Will must appear from what was said above; that all kind affections of soul are amiable [honourable], and the contrary vitious; as is also excessive self-love, and a keen desire of sensual pleasures; that the calm stable affections of a friendly sort are more lovely{, than the turbulent passions}; and that the more extensive are the more honourable.8

1. Such duties therefor as are done deliberately, and from steddy purpose of heart, are more lovely than those which proceed from some sudden gusts of kind passions.9

2. And in like manner such injuries as are done deliberately and with premeditation, or from inveterate ill-will, are much worse than those which arise from sudden anger, fear, or some passionate bent toward pleasure.

As to all motions of anger and fear{, which aim at the repelling some impendent evil,} we may observe; that as the first step, and most necessary one, toward happiness and ease, is the warding off of pain, and the first office of virtue is the avoiding vice; the passions of aversion from evil are naturally stronger in their kind, than those pursuing positive good; and as ’tis harder to resist their impulses, they are greater alleviations of guilt, in vitious actions, tho’ none of them can wholly take it away; since it is always in one’s power, who has an hearty concern about virtue, and sets himself to it, to restrain these passions in a great measure, and prevent their breaking out into external actions.

3. We cannot expect the same degrees of beneficence, or a like extent of it, in all equally good characters, considering the different tempers of men, their different abilities, opportunities, leisure, or hurry of business.

4. There are great differences in point of moral excellence among the several narrower sorts of kind affections, according to their different springs or causes, some of which are far more honourable than others. That good will which arises from some conjunctions of interest, {so that we wish well to others only for our own interest arising from their prosperity,} tho’ it may be free from any moral turpitude, yet has nothing morally amiable; since such affection may be found in the worst of men, and may have the worst for its object: nor is there much moral beauty in the affections merely founded on the tyes of blood, or in the passions of lovers. These motions are generally turbulent and are all of a narrower kind: and such is the constitution of our nature, that they are often found among such as shew scarce any other virtues. And yet the want of such affections in such relations, would shew a great depravity. That heart must be singularly hard and insensible to kind affections which cannot be moved to them by these strong natural causes.

There is an higher moral beauty in that good-will and gratitude which arises from benefits received, where it is {truly sincere,} without any shew or ostentation designed to obtain further favours. In a like class we may reckon pity and compassion, with a desire of giving relief to the distressed. And yet these two are of a narrower nature: and such is the frame of the human heart, so strong are these impulses, that none but monsters are void of all degrees of such affections. In the common offices of these kinds there’s no eminent virtue; but in neglecting or omitting them{, contrary to such strong natural impulses,} there must be evidenced great depravation.

That <benevolence and> love arising from a conformity of virtuous dispositions{, which we call friendship,} is far more lovely: as it shews an high relish for moral excellence, and an affection which would extend to many in a considerable degree, if like virtues appeared in them. A strong love for one’s country, is yet more excellent. But of all social affections that is most amiable, which, conjoined with wisdom, is stedfastly set on promoting the most extensive happiness of all mankind, and doing good to each one as there is opportunity.

And yet the common interest of the whole, which both the nobler desires of the soul, and our moral sense [natural instinct] chiefly recommend to our care, plainly requires that each one should more peculiarly employ his activity for the interest of such whom the stronger ties of nature have peculiarly recommended, or entrusted to his care, as far as their interests consist with the general good, and that his ordinary occupations should be destined for their benefit. The bulk of mankind have no ability or opportunity of promoting the general interest any other more immediate way.

VI. These seem to be general rules of estimation in this matter. The stronger that the natural impulse is in any narrower ties of affection, the less there is of moral beauty in performing any supposed offices; and the greater is the moral deformity of omitting them. The stronger the moral obligation is to any performance, or the right by which others claim it, the less laudable is the performance, and the more censurable and injurious is the omission or refusal of it. And the weaker the right or claim of others is, ’tis the less vitious to have omitted or refused any office, and ’tis the more honourable to have readily performed it; provided we shew a readiness proportionably greater in performing such offices as others have a more sacred claim to.

In comparing [condemning] vitious actions or designs, other circumstances being equal, the turpitude is the less, the greater or the more specious the motives were which induced us to it. To have violated the laws of universal justice out of zeal for our country, or to have neglected the interest of our country from zeal for our friends, or from gratitude to our benefactors, is not so base and deformed, as if one had neglected or counteracted these more extensive interests for his own gain, or for any sensual gratification; this last excuse is indeed the meanest of all.

As far as any views of one’s own advantage have excited a man to such actions as are in their own nature good, so far the moral beauty is abated:10 and when there was no other affection moving him, there remains no moral beauty, tho’ the action may still be innocent, or void of any vice.

Where any such views of interest as must exceedingly move even the best of men, have excited one to what is culpable, the moral turpitude is diminished on that account. The passions excited by the present apprehension of some great evil <for us or those that are dear to us> make a much greater impression upon the best of men, than such as arise from prospects of any new advantages or pleasures; and therefor they are much stronger alleviations of guilt.11 Keen {selfishness, or} love of pleasures, are of themselves <very> dishonourable; and shew that the meaner parts of the soul have usurped a base tyranny over its nobler faculties.

The honourable offices we undertake, if they are expensive, toilsome, or dangerous to ourselves, they are on this account the more honourable.12 And yet since the grand aim of the good man is the promoting the publick good, and not the pleasing himself with an high admiration of his own virtues; he must also endeavour to fortify his soul, as much as he can, to surmount all allurements or temptations tending a contrary way: and this is most effectually done by a deep persuasion that a perfectly just and wise Providence governs the world, will take care of the interests of the virtuous; and that the only path to an happy immortality is by virtue: the good man therefor will be far from excluding out of his counsels these glorious hopes, nay he will cherish and confirm them; that he may thus become the more inflexible and steddy in every virtuous design.

VII. As to the importance of actions and the abilities of the agents, these general rules seem to hold. 1. That, other circumstances being equal, the moral goodness of actions is proportioned to their importance to the common interest, which the agent had in view.13

2. When other circumstances are equal, the virtue of an action is inversely as the abilities of the agent: that is, when the importance of two actions is equal, he shews the greater virtue who with smaller abilities <and poorer resources>, equals the more potent in his beneficence.14

3. The like observations hold about the vice of evil actions, that it is directly as their importance to the publick detriment foreseen, and inversely as the abilities of the agents: or that these are worst which have the worst tendency; or which undertaken by persons of little power, shew that they have malitiously exerted all their force in doing mischief.15

4. In estimating the importance of actions, we must take in that whole series of events, which might have been foreseen to ensue upon them, and which without these actions would not have happened; whether these events be the natural direct effects of the actions, or happened by the intervention of other agents, who by these actions have been provoked or incited to take certain measures.16 For every good man will consider all that may ensue upon any steps he takes; and will avoid doing any thing contrary to the common utility, or which may without necessity give an occasion or temptation to any publick <or private> detriment{, either more or less extensive}.

As to the events or effects of actions, this holds; that any publick advantage ensuing, tho’ it had been foreseen, yet if it was not intended and desired, adds nothing to the virtue of the action, nor is it matter of praise; as it shews no goodness of temper. But publick detriment which might have been foreseen, tho’ it was not directly desired, nor perhaps actually foreseen, may add to the moral turpitude. Because that even a negligence and unconcernedness about the publick interest is of itself vitious, shewing either an entire want, or a great defect in goodness of temper.

5. But we must not pronounce every action to be evil from which some evil consequences were foreseen to ensue;17 unless these evils were directly desired for themselves. The consequences of most external actions are of a mixed nature, some good, some bad. There’s no course of life which has not its own advantages and disadvantages; all which are indeed to come into computation. These actions therefor alone are good, on account of their importance, whose good consequences foreseen overballance their evil consequences; and when the good could not have been obtained without these or equal evils: and those actions are evil in this respect, where the evil consequences overballance all the good; or where the good might have been obtained without such evils{, or with a smaller degree of them}.18

6. But in the sight of God and Conscience these events are imputed not as they actually happen, but according as there was a probable prospect that they might happen. For the moral good and evil consists not in the external events, but in the affections and purposes of the soul. And hence two persons may be equal in guilt, tho’ one of them, restrained by accident or the prudence of others, has done no damage, and the other has done a great deal. And he is equally laudable who has made noble attempts, to the utmost of his power, tho’ unsuccessfully, with those to whom all things have succeeded according to their wishes.19

VIII. Amongst the circumstances which affect both the will and the abilities of the agents, may be reckoned custom and habit: which tho’ they rather abate than increase the pleasure of particular enjoyments, yet increase the regret and uneasiness in the want of what we have been enured to, make us more inclined to pursue like enjoyments, and give us greater facility and readiness in any course of action. As the acquiring of such habits was voluntary, so it still remains in our power to abate their force or take them away altogether by cautious abstinence or frequent intermission of such actions and enjoyments. However therefor an habit of virtue, {making each office less difficult,} may seem to abate a little of the excellence of each particular office, yet it plainly adds to the beauty and excellence of the character: and on the other hand habits of vice, however they may a little abate the deformity of each particular vitious action, yet plainly shew the character to be the more deformed and odious.20

Sometimes it may happen that one is justly praised on account of the good actions of other men, nay that even the desirable effects of natural inanimate causes are imputed to him as honourable, when by some honourable actions of his own he has contributed to these events. And in like manner the damages or injuries immediately done by other men or inanimate causes, are imputed as crimes, when one has occasioned them by any action or omission contrary to his duty.21

[1. ]See System 2.1.5, vol. I, p. 234.

[2. ]See System 2.1.1, vol. I, p. 228.

[3. ]In the first four sections of this chapter, it is clearly Hutcheson’s intention to treat such themes as imputation, voluntary and necessary actions, vincible and invincible ignorance, conscience and erroneous conscience, discussed by Pufendorf in De officio 1.1. However Hutcheson does not follow Pufendorf in his argument; nor is there great similarity between these sections and the corresponding chapter 1, book II, of System. On antecedent and subsequent conscience, see Pufendorf, De iure nat. 1.3.4.

[4. ]On the distinction between formal and material goodness, see Pufendorf, De iure nat. 1.7.4 and System 2.3.1, vol. I, pp. 252–53.

[5. ]See System 2.1.2, vol. I, p. 229.

[6. ]See System 2.1.4, vol. I, p. 233.

[7. ]See System 2.1.5, vol. I, p. 235.

[8. ]About this general premise, see Inquiry on Virtue, III, 9, and System 2.2.2, vol. I, pp. 239–40. The estimation or computation of the morality of actions is not a subject of Pufendorf’s De officio and is only slightly treated in Pufendorf’s De iure nat. 1.8. This subject is peculiar to Hutcheson and is largely treated in his Inquiry on Virtue, Section III, especially Art. 8–12, and Section VII, Art. 9, as well as in the whole chapter II of System. However, while there is substantial concord between the main rules of this evaluation, the order and the details of Hutcheson’s account are in many ways different in the three works. The Inquiry deals with the moral evaluation according to (1) the quantity of good or evil produced and (2) the kind of affections involved in Section III, and applies this evaluation to juridical matters in Section VII. The System generally follows the same order, and its Section V coincides in many points with Section VII, Art. 9, of the Inquiry, but some matters are redundant, and in Sections III and IV the tension between the excellency of calm and extended benevolence and the duty (and usual practice) of cultivating the limited affections becomes problematic. In the Institutio, the four points of Section V are pretty general, the moral evaluation is the last treated in Section VII, and Section VI shows the difference between moral and juridical evaluations of our actions rather than their agreement.

[9. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, III.14, p. 194.

[10. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, III.11, point 4, p. 189, VII.9, point 2, pp. 288–89, and System 2.1, point 2, vol. I, p. 238 and 2.3.5 point 3, p. 246.

[11. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, VII.9, point 3, pp. 289–90, and System 2.3.5, point 4, vol. I, p. 246.

[12. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, III.11, point 4, p. 189; VII.9, point 4, vol. I, p. 290; and System 2.3.3, point 4, vol. I, p. 241.

[13. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, III.11, point 2, p. 187, and System 2.3.1, point 1, vol. I, p. 238.

[14. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, III.11, point 3, pp. 187–88, and System 2.3.1, point 1, vol. I, p. 238.

[15. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, III.12, p. 191, and System 2.3.1, point 3, vol. I, pp. 238–39.

[16. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, III.8, pp. 181–82, and System 2.1.3, vol. I, pp. 230–31.

[17. ]<neither all the evils consequent to any action, though foreseen, make it evil> The translator rightly dropped this pleonastic sentence.

[18. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, III.8, p. 181, and System 2.1.3, vol. I, p. 231.

[19. ]See Inquiry on Virtue, VII.9, point 1, p. 288, and System 2.2.5, point 2, vol. I, pp. 245–46.

[20. ]On habit or consuetudo, see Pufendorf, De officio 1.1, point 13.

[21. ]See Pufendorf, De officio 1.1, point 18.