- Introduction
- Acknowledgments
- The Preface
- Treatise I: An Essay On the Nature and Conduct of the Passions
- Section I: A General Account of Our Several Senses and Desires, Selfish Or Publick
- Section II: Of the Affections and Passions: the Natural Laws of Pure Affection: the Confused Sensations of the Passions, With Their Final Causes
- Section III: Particular Divisions of the Affections and Passions.
- Section IV: How Far Our Several Affections and Passions Are Under Our Power, Either to Govern Them When Raised, Or to Prevent Their Arising: With Some General Observations About Their Objects.
- Section V: A Comparison of the Pleasures and Pains of the Several Senses, As to Intenseness and Duration.
- Section VI: Some General Conclusions Concerning the Best Management of Our Desires. With Some Principles Necessary to Happiness.
- Treatise II: Illustrations Uponthe Moral Sense
- Section I Concerning the Character of Virtue, Agreeable to Truth Or Reason.
- Section II: Concerning That Character of Virtue and Vice, the Fitness Or Unfitness of Actions.
- Section III: Mr. Woolaston’s Significancy of Truth, As the Idea of Virtue Considered
- Section IV: Shewing the Use of Reason Concerning Virtue and Vice, Upon Supposition That We Receive These Ideas By a Moral Sense.
- Section V: Shewing That Virtue May Have Whatever Is Meant By Merit; and Be Rewardable Upon the Supposition, That It Is Perceived By a Sense, and Elected From Affection Or Instinct.
- Section VI: How Far a Regard to the Deity Is Necessary to Make an Action Virtuous
treatise ii
Illustrations uponthe Moral Sense
[205/207] The Differences of Actions from which some are constituted morally Good, and others morally Evil, have always been accounted a very important Subject of Inquiry: And therefore, every Attempt to free this Subject from the usual Causes of Error and Dispute, the Confusion of ambiguous Words, must be excusable.
Definitions.In the following Discourse, Happiness denotes pleasant Sensation of any kind, or a continued State of such Sensations; and Misery denotes the contrary Sensations.
Such Actions as tend to procure Happiness to the Agent, are called privately useful: and such Actions as procure Misery to the Agent, privately hurtful.
[206] Actions procuring Happiness to others may be called publickly useful, and the contrary Actions publickly hurtful. Some Actions may be both publickly and privately useful, and others both publickly and privately hurtful.
These different natural Tendencies of Actions are universally acknowledged; and in proportion to our Reflection upon human Affairs, we shall enlarge our Knowledge of these Differences.
Two Questions about Morality.When these natural Differences are known, it remains to be inquired into: 1st, “What Quality in any Action determines our Election of it rather than the contrary?” Or, if the Mind determines itself, “What Motives or Desires excite to an Action, rather than the contrary, or rather than to the Omission?” 2dly, “What Quality determines our Approbation of one Action, rather than of the contrary Action?”
The Words Election and Approbation seem to denote simple Ideas known by Consciousness; which can only be explained by synonimous Words, or by concomitant or con[209]sequent Circumstances. Election is purposing to do an Action rather than its contrary, or than being inactive. Appro[207]bation of our own Action denotes, or is attended with a Pleasure in the Contemplation of it, and in Reflection upon the Affections which inclined us to it. Approbation of the Action of another is pleasant, and is attended with Love toward the Agent.
The Qualities moving to Election, or exciting to Action, are different from those moving to Approbation: We often do Actions which we do not approve, and approve Actions which we omit: We often desire that an Agent had omitted an Action which we approve; and wish he would do an Action which we condemn. Approbation is employed about the Actions of others, where there is no room for our Election.
Now in our Search into the Qualities exciting either our Election or Approbation, let us consider the several Notions advanced of moral Good and Evil in both these Respects; and what Senses, Instincts, or Affections, [210] must be necessarily supposed to account for our Approbation or Election.
The Epicurean Opinion.There are two Opinions on this Subject entirely opposite: The one that of the old Epicureans, as it is beautifully explained in the first Book of Cicero, De [208 ] finibus; which is revived by Mr. Hobbes, and followed by many better Writers: “That all the Desires of the human Mind, nay of all thinking Natures, are reducible to Self‐Love, or Desire of private Happiness: That from this Desire all Actions of any Agent do flow.” Our Christian Moralists introduce other sorts of Happiness to be desired, but still “ ’tis the Prospect of private Happiness, which, with some of them, is the sole Motive of Election. And that, in like manner, what determines any Agent to approve his own Action, is its Tendency to his private Happiness in the whole, tho it may bring present Pain along with it: That the Approbation of the Action of another, is from an Opinion of its Tendency to the Happiness of the Approver, either immediately or more remotely: That each Agent may discover it to be the surest way to promote his private Happiness, to do publickly useful Actions, and to abstain from those which are publickly hurtful: [211] That the neglecting to observe this, and doing publickly hurtful Actions, does mischief to the whole of Mankind, by hurting any one part; that every one has some little damage by this Action: Such an inadvertent Person might possibly be pernicious to any one, were he in his Neighbourhood; and the very Example [209] of such Actions may extend over the whole World, and produce some pernicious Effects upon any Observer. That therefore every one may look upon such Actions as hurtful to himself, and in this view does disapprove them, and hates the Agent. In the like manner, a publickly useful Action may diffuse some small Advantage to every Observer, whence he may approve it, and love the Agent.”
Does not answer the Appearances.This Scheme can never account for the principal Actions of human Life: Such as the Offices of Friendship, Gratitude, natural Affection, Generosity, publick Spirit, Compassion. Men are conscious of no such Intentions or acute Reflections in these Actions. Ingenious speculative Men, in their straining to support an Hypothesis, may contrive a thousand subtle selfish Motives, which a kind generous Heart never dreamed of. In like manner, this Scheme can never account for [212] the sudden Approbation, and violent Sense of something amiable in Actions done in distant Ages and Nations, while the Approver has perhaps never thought of these distant Tendencies to his Happiness. Nor will it better account for our want of Approbation [210] toward publickly useful Actions done casually, or only with Intention of private Happiness to the Agent. And then, in these Actions reputed generous, if the Agent’s Motive was only a view to his own Pleasure, how come we to approve them more than his enriching himself, or his gratifying his own Taste with good Food? The whole Species may receive a like Advantage from both, and the Observer an equal Share.
Were our Approbation of Actions done in distant Ages and Nations, occasioned by this Thought, that such an Action done toward our selves would be useful to us, why don’t we approve and love in like manner any Man who finds a Treasure, or indulges himself in any exquisite Sensation, since these Advantages or Pleasures might be conferred on our selves; and tend more to our Happiness than any Actions in distant Ages?
The Sanctions of Laws may make any Agent chuse the Action required, under the Conception of useful to himself, and lead [213] him into an Opinion of private Advantage in it, and of detriment in the contrary Actions; but what should determine any Person to approve the Actions of others, because of a Conformity to a [211] Law, if Approbation in any Person were only an Opinion of private Advantage?
The opposite Opinion does plainly.The other Opinion is this, “That we have not only Self‐Love, but benevolent Affections also toward others, in various Degrees, making us desire their Happiness as an ultimate End, without any view to private Happiness: That we have a moral Sense or Determination of our Mind, to approve every kind Affection either in our selves or others, and all publickly useful Actions which we imagined do flow from such Affection, without our having a view to our private Happiness, in our Approbation of these Actions.”
These two Opinions seem both intelligible, each consistent with itself. The former seems not to represent human Nature as it is; the other seems to do it.
Schemes seemingly different from both.There have been many ways of speaking introduced, which seem to signify something different from both the former Opinions. Such as these, that “Morality of Actions consists in Conformity to Reason, or Difformity [214] from it:” That “Virtue is acting according to the absolute Fitness and Unfitness of Things, or agreeably to the [212] Natures or Relations of Things,” and many others in different Authors. To examine these is the Design of the following Sections; and to explain more fully how the Moral Sense alledged to be in Mankind, must be presupposed even in these Schemes.
section i
Concerning the Character of Virtue, agreeable to Truth or Reason.
[213/215] Since Reason is understood to denote our Power of finding out true Propositions, Reasonableness must denote the same thing, with Conformity to true Propositions, or to Truth.
Reasonableness in an Action is a very common Expression, but yet upon inquiry, it will appear very confused, whether we suppose it the Motive to Election, or the Quality determining Approbation.
Conformity to Truth examined.There is one sort of Conformity to Truth which neither determines to the one or the other; viz. that Conformity which is between every true Proposition and its Object. This sort of Conformity can never make us chuse or approve one Action more than its contrary, for it is found in all Actions alike: Whatever attribute can be ascribed to a generous kind Action, the contrary Attribute may as truly be ascribed to a selfish cruel Action: Both Propositions are equally true, [216 ] and the two contrary Actions, the Objects of the two [214] Truths are equally conformable to their several Truths, with that sort of Conformity which is between a Truth and its Object. This Conformity then cannot make a Difference among Actions, or recommend one more than another either to Election or Approbation, since any Man may make as many Truths about Villany, as about Heroism, by ascribing to it contrary Attributes.
For Instance, these are Truths concerning the Preservation of Property. “It tends to the Happiness of human Society: It incourages Industry: It shall be rewarded by God.” These are also Truths concerning Robbery. “It disturbs Society: It discourages Industry: It shall be punished by God.” The former three Truths have the Preservation of Property for their Object; the latter three have Robbery. And each Class of Truths hath that sort of Conformity to its Object, which is common to all Truths with their Objects. The moral Difference cannot therefore depend upon this Conformity, which is common to both.
The Number of Truths in both cases may be plainly the same; so that a good Action cannot be supposed to agree to more Truths than an evil one, nor can an evil Action be disagreeable to any Truth or [215] Compages [217] of Truths made about it; for whatever Propositions do not agree with their Objects are not Truths.
If Reasonableness, the Character of Virtue, denote some other sort of Conformity to Truth, it were to be wished that these Gentlemen, who make it the original Idea of moral Good, antecedent to any Sense or Affections, would explain it, and shew how it determines us antecedently to a Sense, either to Election or Approbation.
They tell us, “we must have some Standardantecedently to all Sense or Affections, since we judge even of our Senses and Affections themselves, and approve or disapprove them: This Standard must be our Reason, Conformity to which must be the original Idea of moral Good.”
Reasons either justifying or exciting.But what is this Conformity of Actions to Reason? When we ask the Reason of an Action we sometimes mean, “What Truth shews a Quality in the Action, exciting the Agent to do it?” Thus, why does a Luxurious Man pursue Wealth? The Reason is given by this Truth, “Wealth is useful to purchase Pleasures.” Sometimes for a Reason of Actions we shew the Truth expressing a Quality, engaging our Approbation. Thus the Reason of hazarding [216] Life in just War, is, that “it tends to preserve our [218] honest Countrymen, or evidences publick Spirit:” The Reason for Temperance, and against Luxury is given thus, “Luxury evidences a selfish base Temper.” The former sort of Reasons we will call exciting, and the latter justifying. Now we shall find that all exciting Reasons presuppose Instincts and Affections; and the justifying presuppose a Moral Sense.
Exciting Reasons suppose Affections.As to exciting Reasons, in every calm rational Action some endis desired or intended; no end can be intended or desired previously to some one of these Classes of Affections, Self‐Love, Self‐Hatred, or desire of private Misery, (if this be possible) Benevolence toward others, or Malice: All Affections are included under these; no endcan be previous to them all; there can therefore be no exciting Reason previous to Affection.
We have indeed many confused Harangues on this Subject, telling us, “We have two Principles of Action, Reason, and Affection, or Passion (i.e. strong Affection): the former in common with [217] Angels, the latter with Brutes: No Action is wise, or good, or reasonable, to which we are not excited [219] by Reason, as distinct from all Affections; or, if any such Actions as flow from Affections be good, ’tis only by chance, or materially and not formally.” As if indeed Reason, or the Knowledge of the Relations of things, could excite to Action when we proposed no End, or as if Ends could be intended without Desire or Affection.
No exciting Reasons forultimate Ends.But are there not also exciting Reasons, even previous to any end, moving us to propose one end rather than another? To this Aristotle long ago answered, “that there are ultimate Ends desired without a view to any thing else, and subordinate Ends or Objects desired with a view to something else.” To subordinate Ends those Reasons or Truths excite, which shew them to be conducive to the ultimate End, and shew one Object to be more effectual than another: thus subordinate Ends may be called reasonable. But as to the ultimate Ends, to suppose exciting Reasons for them, would infer, that there is no ultimate End, but that we desire one thing for another in an infinite Series.
Thus ask a Being who desires private Happiness, or has Self‐Love? “what [218] Reason [221] excites him to desire Wealth”? He will give this Reason, that “Wealth tends to procure Pleasure and Ease.” Ask his Reason for desiring Pleasure or Happiness: One cannot imagine what Proposition he could assign as his exciting Reason. This Proposition is indeed true, “There is an Instinct or Desire fixed in his Nature, determining him to pursue his Happiness;” but it is not this Reflection on his own Nature, or this Proposition which excites or determines him, but the Instinct itself. This is a Truth, “Rhubarb strengthens the Stomach:” But ’tis not a Proposition which strengthens the Stomach, but the Quality in that Medicine. The Effect is not produced by Propositions shewing the Cause, but by the Cause itself.
In like manner, what Reason can a benevolent Being give, as exciting him to hazard his Life in just War? This perhaps, “such Conduct tends to the Happiness of his Country.” Ask him, “why he serves his Country?” he will say, “His Country is a very valuable Part of Mankind.” Why does he study the Happiness of Mankind? If his Affections be really disinterested, he can give no exciting Reasons for it: The Happiness of Mankind in general, or of any valuable Part of it, is an ultimate Endto that Series of Desires.
Men have many ultimate Ends.[219/222] We may transiently observe one Mistake which many fall into, who in their Philosophical Inquiries have learned to form very abstract general Ideas: They suppose, because they have formed some Conception of an infinite Good, or greatest possible Aggregate, or Sum of Happiness, under which all particular Pleasures may be included; that there is also some one great ultimate End, with a view to which every particular Object is desired; whereas, in truth, each particular Pleasure is desired without farther view, as an ultimate End in the selfish Desires. ’Tis true, the Prospect of a greater inconsistent Pleasure may surmount or stop this Desire; so may the Fear of a prepollent Evil. But this does not prove, that “all Men have formed Ideas of infinite Good, or greatest possible Aggregate, or that they have any Instinct or Desire, without an Idea of its Object.” Just so in the benevolent Affections, the Happiness of any one Person is an ultimate End, desired with no farther view: And yet the observing its Inconsistency with the Happiness of another more beloved, or with the Happiness of many, tho each one of them were but equally beloved, may overcome the former Desire. Yet this will not prove, that in each kind Action Men do form the abstract Conception of all Mankind, or the System of Rationals. [210] The forming such large Conceptions is indeed useful, that so we may gratify either our [223] Self‐Love or kind Affections in the fullest manner, as far as our Power extends; and may not content our selves with smaller Degrees either of private or publick Good, while greater are in our power: But when we have formed these Conceptions, we do not serve the Individual only from Love to the Species, no more than we desire Grapes with an Intention of the greatest Aggregate of Happiness, or from an Apprehension that they make a Part of the General sum of our Happiness. These Conceptions only serve to suggest greater Ends than would occur to us without Reflection; and by the Prepollency of one Desire toward the greater Good, either private or publick, to stop the Desire toward the smaller Good, when it appears inconsistent with the greater.
The common Reasons examined.Let us examine the Truths assigned as exciting to the Pursuit of publick Good, even by those, who, tho they allow disinterested Affections, and a moral Sense, yet suppose something reasonable in it antecedently. They assign such as these “publick Good is the End proposed by the Deity.” Then what Reason excites Men to concur with the Deity? Is it this, “Concurring with the Deity will make the Agent happy?” This is an exciting Reason indeed, [221] but plainly supposes Self‐Love: [224] And let any one assign the exciting Reason to the Desire of Happiness. Is the Reason exciting to concur with the Deity this, “The Deity is our Benefactor?” Then what Reason excites to concur with Benefactors? Here we must recur to an Instinct. Is it this Truth, “The divine Ends are reasonable Ends?” Then what means the Word [reasonable?] Does it mean, that “the Deity has Reasons exciting him to promote the publick Good?” What are these Reasons? Why, perhaps “we do not know them particularly, but in general are sure that the Deity has Reasons for them.” Then the Question recurs, What Reason excites us to implicit Concurrence with the Ends of the Deity? The Reasons which excite one Nature may not excite another: The Tendency of an Action to the Happiness of one Agent may excite him, but will not excite another Agent to concur, unless there appears a like Tendency to the Happiness of that other. They may say, “they are sure the divine Ends are good.” What means Goodness? Is it moral or natural? If the divine Ends be natural Good, i.e. pleasant, or the Cause of Pleasure, to whom is this Pleasure? If to the Deity, then why do we study the Happiness or the pleasing of the Deity? What Reason excites us? All the possible Reasons must [222] either presuppose some Affection, if they are [225] exciting; or some moral Sense, if they are justifying.—Is the divine End naturally good to us? This is an exciting Reason, but supposes Self‐Love. If we say the divine Ends are morally Good, we are just where we began. What is moral Goodness? Conformity to Reason. What are the Reasons exciting or justifying?
If any alledg as the Reason exciting us to pursue publick Good, this Truth, that “the Happiness of a System, a Thousand, or a Million, is a greater Quantity of Happiness than that of one Person: and consequently, if Men desire Happiness, they must have stronger Desires toward the greater Sum, than toward the less.” This Reason still supposes an Instinct toward Happiness as previous to it: And again, To whom is the Happiness of a System a greater Happiness? To one Individual, or to the System? If to the Individual, then his Reason exciting his Desire of a happy System supposes Self‐Love: If to the System, then what Reason can excite to desire the greater Happiness of a System, or any Happiness to be in the Possession of others? None surely which does not presuppose publick Affections. Without such Affections this Truth, “that an hundred Felicities is a greater Sum than one Felicity,” will no [223] more excite to study the Happiness of the Hundred, than this Truth, “an hundred [226] Stones are greater than one,” will excite a Man, who has no desire of Heaps, to cast them together.
The same may be observed concerning that Proposition, assigned by some as the ultimate Reason both exciting to, and justifying the Pursuit of publick Good, viz. “It is best that all should be happy.” Best is most good: Good to whom? To the Whole, or to each Individual? If to the former, when this Truth excites to Action, it must presuppose kind Affections; if it is good to each Individual, it must suppose Self‐Love.
The true Meaning of Reasons exciting to Actions, and reasonable Actions.Let us once suppose Affections, Instincts or Desires previously implanted in our Nature: and we shall easily understand the exciting Reasons for Actions, viz. “These Truths which shew them to be conducive toward some ultimate End, or toward the greatest Endof that kind in our Power.” He acts reasonably, who considers the various Actions in his Power, and forms true Opinions of their Tendencies; and then chuses to do that which will obtain the highest Degree of that, to which the Instincts of his Nature incline him, with the smallest Degree of those things to [224] which the Affections in his Nature make him averse.
[227] More particularly, the exciting Reasons to a Nature which had only selfish Affections, are those Truths which shewed “what Object or Event would occasion to it the greatest Quantity of Pleasure:” these would excite to the Prosecution of it. The exciting Truths about Means, would be only those which pointed out some Means as more certainly effectual than any other, or with less Pain or Trouble to the Agent. Publick Usefulness of Ends or Means, or publick Hurtfulness would neither excite nor dissuade, farther than the publick State might affect that of the Agent.
If there is any Nature with publick Affections: The Truths exciting to any Endin this Order, are such as shew, “that any Event would promote the Happiness of others.” That Endis called most reasonable, which our Reason discovers to contain a greater Quantity of publick Good, than any other in our power.
When any Event may affect both the Agent and others, if the Agent have both Self‐Love and publick Affections, he acts according to that Affection which is strongest, when there is any Opposition of Interests; [225] if there be no Opposition, he follows both. If he discovers this Truth, that “his constant [228] pursuit of publick Goodis the most probable way of promoting his own Happiness,” then his Pursuit is truly reasonable and constant; thus both Affections are at once gratify’d, and he is consistent with himself. Without knowledge of that Truth he does not act reasonably for his own Happiness, but follows it by Means not tending effectually to this End: and must frequently, from the Power of Self‐Love, neglect or counteract his other End, the publick Good. If there be also a moral Sense in such an Agent, while yet he is inadvertent to the Connexion of private Happiness with the Study of the publick; he must be perpetually yet more uneasy, either thro’ the apprehended Neglect of private Interest when he serves the Publick; or when he pursues only private Interest, he will have perpetual Remorse and Dissatisfaction with his own Temper, thro’ his moral Sense. So that the Knowledge of this Connexion of private Interest, with the Study of publick Good, seems absolutely necessary to preserve a constant Satisfaction of Mind, and to prevent an alternate Prevalence of seemingly contrary Desires.
Should any one ask even concerning these two ultimate Ends, private Good[226] and publick, is not the latter more reasonable than the former?—What means the Word reasonable in this Question? If we [229] are allowed to presuppose Instincts and Affections, then the Truth just now supposed to be discoverable concerning our State, is an exciting Reason to serve the publick Interest, since this Conduct is the most effectual Means to obtain both ends. But I doubt if any Truth can be assigned which excites in us either the Desire of private Happiness or publick. For the former none ever alledged any exciting Reason: and a benevolent Temper finds as little Reason exciting him to the latter; which he desires without any view to private Good. If the meaning of the Question be this, “does not every Spectator approve the Pursuit of publick Good more than private?” The Answer is obvious that he does: but not for any Reason or Truth, but from a moral Sense.
This leads to consider Approbation of Actions, whether it be for Conformity to any Truth, or Reasonableness, that Actions are ultimately approved, independently of any moral Sense? Or if all justifying Reasons do not presuppose it?
Justifying Reasons suppose a moral Sense.If Conformity to Truth, or Reasonable, denote nothing else but that “an Action is the Object of a true Proposition,” ’tis [227] plain, that all Actions should be approved [230] equally, since as many Truths may be made about the worst, as can be made about the best. See what was said above about exciting Reasons.
But let the Truths commonly assigned as justifying be examined. Here ’tis plain, “A Truth shewing an Action to be fit to attain an End,” does not justify it; nor do we approve a subordinate Endfor any Truth, which only shews it to be fit to promote the ultimate End; for the worst Actions may be conducive to their Ends, and reasonable in that Sense. The justifying Reasons then must be about the Ends themselves, especially the ultimate Ends. The Question then is, “Does a Conformity to any Truth make us approve an ultimate End, previously to any moral Sense?” For example, we approve pursuing the publick Good. For what Reason? or what is the Truth for Conformity to which we call it a reasonable End? I fancy we can find none in these Cases, more than we could give for our liking any pleasant Fruit.
The Reasons assigned are such as these; “’Tis the End proposed by theDeity.” But why do we approve concurring with [231] the divine Ends? This Reason is given, “He is our Benefactor:” But then, for [228] what Reason do we approve Concurrence with a Benefactor? Here we must recur to a Sense. Is this the Reason moving to Approbation, “Study of publick Good tends to the Advantage of the Approver?” Then the Quality moving us to approve an Action, is its being advantageous to us, and not Conformity to a Truth. This Scheme is intelligible, but not true in fact. Men approve without Perception of private Advantage; and often do not condemn or disapprove what is plainly pernicious; as in the Execution of a just Sentence, which even the Criminal may approve.
If any allege, that this is the justifying Reason of the Pursuit of publick Good, “that it is best all be happy,” then we approve Actions for their Tendency to that State which is best, and not for Conformity to Reason. But here again, what means best? morally best, or naturally best? If the former, they explain the same Word by itself in a Circle: If they mean the latter, that “it is the most happy State where all are happy;” then, most happy, for whom? the System, or the Individual? If for the former, what Reason makes us approve the Happiness of a System? Here we must recur to a Sense or kind Affections. Is [232] it most happy for the Individual? Then the Quality moving Approbation is [229] again Tendency to private Happiness, not Reasonableness.
Obligation supposes either Affections or a moral Sense.There are some other Reasons assigned in Words differing from the former, but more confused, such as these: “’Tis our Duty to study publick Good. We are obliged to do it. We owe Obedience to the Deity. The whole is to be preferred to a Part.” But let these Words Duty, Obligation, Owing, and the meaning of that Gerund, is to be preferred, be explained; and we shall find our selves still at a Loss for exciting Reasons previously to Affections, or justifying Reasons without recourse to a moral Sense.
The meaning of Obligation.When we say one is obliged to an Action, we either mean, 1. That the Action is necessary to obtain Happiness to the Agent, or to avoid Misery: Or, 2. That every Spectator, or he himself upon Reflection, must approve his Action, and disapprove his omitting it, if he considers fully all its Circumstances. The former Meaning of the Word Obligation presupposes selfish Affections, and the Senses of private Happiness: The latter Meaning includes the moral Sense. Mr. Barbeyrac, in his Annotations upon Grotius, [230/233] makes Obligation denote an indispensable Necessity to act in a certain manner. Whoever observes his Explication of this Necessity, (which is not natural, otherwise no Man could act against his Obligation) will find that it denotes only “such a Constitution of a powerful Superior, as will make it impossible for any Being to obtain Happiness, or avoid Misery, but by such a Course of Action.” This agrees with the former Meaning, tho sometimes he also includes the latter.
Many other confused Definitions have been given of Obligation, by no obscure Names in the learned World. But let any one give a distinct Meaning, different from the two above‐mentioned. To pursue them all would be endless; only let the Definitions be substituted in place of the Word Obligation, in other parts of each Writer, and let it be observed whether it makes good Sense or not.
Arguments for some Standard of Morals prior to a Sense considered. Before we quit this Character Reasonableness, let us consider the Arguments brought to prove that there must be some Standard of moral Good antecedent to any Sense. Say [234] they, “Perceptions of Sense are deceitful, we must have some Perception or Idea of Virtue more stable and certain; this must be Conformity to Reason: Truth discovered by our Reason [231] is certain and invariable: That then alone is the Original Idea of Virtue, Agreement with Reason.” But in like manner our Sight and Sense of Beauty is deceitful, and does not always represent the true Forms of Objects. We must not call that beautiful or regular, which pleases the Sight, or an internal Sense; but Beauty in external Forms too, consists in Conformity to Reason. So our Taste may be vitiated: we must not say that Savour is perceived by Taste, but must place the original Idea of grateful Savours in Conformity to Reason, and of ungrateful in Contrariety to Reason. We may mistake the real Extent of Bodies, or their Proportions, by making a Conclusion upon the first sensible Appearance: Therefore Ideas of Extension are not originally acquired by a Sense, but consist in Conformity to Reason.
If what is intended in this Conformity to Reason be this, “That we should call no Action virtuous, unless we have some Reason to conclude it to be virtuous, or some Truth shewing it to be so.” This is very true; but then in like manner we should count no Action vicious, unless we [235] have some Reason for counting it so, or when ’tis Truth “that it is vicious.” If this be intended by Conformity to Truth, then at the same rate we may make Conformity to Truth the original Idea of Vice [232] as well as Virtue; nay, of every Attribute whatsoever. That Taste alone is sweet, which there is Reason to count sweet; that Taste alone is bitter, concerning which ’tis true that it is bitter; that Form alone is beautiful, concerning which ’tis true that it is beautiful; and that alone deformed, which is truly deformed. Thus Virtue, Vice, Sweet, Bitter, Beautiful, or Deformed, originally denote Conformity to Reason, antecedently to Perceptions of any Sense. The Idea of Virtue is particularly that concerning which ’tis Truth, that it is Virtue; or Virtue is Virtue; a wonderful Discovery!
So when some tell us, “that Truth is naturally pleasant, and more so than any sensible Perception; this must therefore engage Men more than any other Motive, if they attend to it.” Let them observe, that as much Truth is known about Vice as Virtue. We may demonstrate the publick Miseries which would ensue upon Perjury, Murder, and Robbery. These Demonstrations would be attended with that Pleasure which is peculiar to Truth; as well as the Demonstrations of the publick Happiness to [236] ensue from Faith, Humanity and Justice. There is equal Truth on both sides.
Whence it is that Virtue is called reasonable and not Vice.[233] We may transiently observe what has occasioned the Use of the Word reasonable, as an Epithet of only virtuous Actions. Tho we have Instincts determining us to desire Ends, without supposing any previous Reasoning; yet ’tis by use of our Reason that we find out the Means of obtaining our Ends. When we do not use our Reason, we often are disappointed of our End. We therefore call those Actions which are effectual to their Ends, reasonable in one Sense of that Word.
Again, in all Men there is probably a moral Sense, making publickly useful Actions and kind Affections grateful to the Agent, and to every Observer: Most Men who have thought of human Actions, agree, that the publickly useful are in the whole also privately useful to the Agent, either in this Life or the next: We conclude, that all Men have the same Affections and Senses: We are convinced by our Reason, that ’tis by publickly useful Actions alone that we can promote all our Ends. Whoever then acts in a contrary manner, we presume is mistaken, ignorant of, or inadvertent to, these Truths which he might know; and say he acts unreasonably. Hence some have [237] been led to imagine, some Reasons either exciting or [234] justifying previously to all Affections or a moral Sense.
Objections from our judging even of our Affections and Senses themselves.Two Arguments are brought in defense of this Epithet, as antecedent to any Sense, viz. “That we judge even of our Affections and Senses themselves, whether they are morally Goodor Evil.”
The second Argument is, that “if all moral Ideas depend upon the Constitution of our Sense, then all Constitutions would have been alike reasonable and good to the Deity, which is absurd.”
I.That we judge our Senses themselves.As to the first Argument, ’tis plain we judge of our own Affections, or those of others by our moral Sense, by which we approve kind Affections, and disapprove the contrary. But none can apply moral Attributes to the very Faculty of perceiving moral Qualities; or call his moral Sense morally Goodor Evil, any more than he calls the Power of Tasting, sweet, or bitter; or of Seeing, strait or crooked, white or black.
Answered.Every one judges the Affections of others by his own Sense; so that it seems not impossible that in these Senses Men might differ as they do in Taste. A Sense approving Benevolence would disapprove [235] that Temper, [238] which a Sense approving Malice would delight in. The former would judge of the latter by his own Sense, so would the latter of the former. Each one would at first view think the Sense of the other perverted. But then, is there no difference? Are both Senses equally good? No certainly, any Man who observed them would think the Sense of the former more desirable than of the latter; but this is, because the moral Sense of every Man is constituted in the former manner. But were there any Nature with no moral Sense at all observing these two Persons, would he not think the State of the former preferable to that of the latter? Yes, he might: but not from any Perception of moral Goodness in the one Sense more than in the other. Any rational Nature observing two Men thus constituted, with opposite Senses, might by reasoning see, not moral Goodness in one Sense more than in the contrary, but a Tendency to the Happiness of the Person himself, who had the former Sense in the one Constitution, and a contrary Tendency in the opposite Constitution: nay, the Persons themselves might observe this; since the former Sense would make these Actions grateful to the Agent which were useful to others; who, if they had a like Sense, would love him, and return good Offices; whereas the latter Sense would make all such Actions as are useful [236] to others, and [239] apt to engage their good Offices, ungrateful to the Agent; and would lead him into publickly hurtful Actions, which would not only procure the Hatred of others, if they had a contrary Sense, but engage them out of their Self‐Love to study his Destruction, tho their Senses agreed. Thus any Observer, or the Agent himself with this latter Sense, might perceive that the Pains to be feared, as the Consequence of malicious Actions, did over‐ballance the Pleasures of this Sense; so that it would be to the Agent’s Interest to counteract it. Thus one Constitution of the moral Sense might appear to be more advantageous to those who had it, than the contrary; as we may call that Sense of Tasting healthful, which made wholesom Meat pleasant; and we would call a contrary Taste pernicious. And yet we should no more call the moral Sense morally goodor evil, than we call the Sense of Tasting savoury or unsavoury, sweet or bitter.
But must we not own, that we judge of all our Senses by our Reason, and often correct their Reports of the Magnitude, Figure, Colour, Taste of Objects, and pronounce them right or wrong, as they agree or disagree with Reason? This is true. But does it then follow, that Extension, Figure, Colour, Taste, are not [237] sensible Ideas, but only denote Reasonableness, or Agreement with [240] Reason? Or that these Qualities are perceivable antecedently to any Sense, by our Power of finding out Truth? Just so a compassionate Temper may rashly imagine the Correction of a Child, or the Execution of a Criminal, to be cruel and inhuman: but by reasoning may discover the superior Goodarising from them in the whole; and then the same moral Sense may determine the Observer to approve them. But we must not hence conclude, that it is any reasoning antecedent to a moral Sense, which determines us to approve the Study of publick Good, any more than we can in the former Case conclude, that we perceive Extension, Figure, Colour, Taste, antecedently to a Sense. All these Sensations are often corrected by Reasoning, as well as our Approbations of Actions as Good or Evil: and yet no body ever placed the Original Idea of Extension, Figure, Colour, or Taste, in Conformity to Reason.
Thus tho no Man can immediately either approve or disapprove as morally good or evil his own moral Sense, by which he approves only Affections and Actions consequent upon them; yet he [238] may see whether it be advantageous to him in other respects, to have it constituted one way rather than another. One Constitution may make these Actions grateful to this Sense which tend to procure other Pleasures also. A contrary Constitution may be known to the very Person himself to be disadvantageous, as making these Actions immediately grateful, which shall occasion all other sorts of Misery. His Self‐Love may excite him, tho with Dissatisfaction, to counteract this Sense, in order to avoid a greater Evil. Mr. Hobbes seems to have had no better Notions of the natural State of Mankind. An Observer, who was benevolent, would desire that all had the former sort of Sense; a malicious Observer, if he feared no Evil to himself, [243] from the Actions of the Persons observed, would desire the latter Constitution. If this Observer had a moral Sense, he would think that Constitution which was contrary to his own, strange and surprizing, or unnatural. If the Observer had no Affections toward others, and were disjoined from Mankind, so as to have neither Hopes nor Fears from their Actions, he would be indifferent about their Constitutions, and have no Desire or Preference of one above another; tho he might see which were advantageous to them, and which pernicious.
The 2d Objection, that all Constitutions would have been alikereasonable,answered.[239] As to the second Argument, What means [alike reasonable or good to theDeity?] Does it mean, “that the Deity could have had no Reasons exciting him to make one Constitution rather than another?” ’Tis plain, if the Deity had nothing essential to his Nature, corresponding to our sweetest and most kind Affections, we can scarce suppose he could have any Reason exciting him to any thing he has done: but grant such a Disposition in the Deity, and then the manifest Tendency of the present Constitution to the Happiness of his Creatures was an exciting Reason for chusing it before the contrary. Each sort of Constitution [244] might have given Men an equal immediate Pleasure in present SelfApprobation for any sort of Action; but the Actions approved by the present Sense, procure all Pleasures of the other Senses; and the Actions which would have been approved by a contrary [245] moral Sense, would have been productive of all Torments of the other Senses.
If it be meant, that “upon this Supposition, that all our Approbation presupposes in us a moral Sense, the DDeitycould not have approved one Constitution more than another:” where is the Consequence? Why may not the Deity have [240] something of a superior Kind, analogous to our moral Sense, essential to him? How does any Constitution of the Senses of Men hinder the Deity to reflect and judge of his own Actions? How does it affect the divine Apprehension, which way soever moral Ideas arise with Men?
If it means “that we cannot approve of one Constitution more than another, or approve theDeityfor making the present Constitution:” This Consequence is also false. The present Constitution of our moral Sense determines us to approve all kind Affections: [246] This Constitution the Deity must have foreseen as tending to the Happiness of his Creatures; it does therefore evidence kind Affection or Benevolence in the Deity, this therefore we must approve.
The meaning of antecedent Reasonableness.We have got some strange Phrases, “that some things are antecedently reasonable in the Nature of the thing,” which some insist upon: “That otherwise, say they, if before Man was created, any Nature without a moral Sense had existed, this Nature would not have approved as morally good in the Deity, his constituting our Sense as it is at present.” Very true; and what next? If there had been no moral Sense in that Nature, there would have been no Perception [241] of Morality. But “could not such Natures have seen something reasonable in one Constitution more than in another?” They might no doubt have reasonedabout the various Constitutions, and foreseen that the present one would tend to the Happiness of Mankind, and would evidence Benevolence in the Deity So also they might have reasonedabout the contrary Constitution, that it would make Men miserable, and evidence Malice in the Deity. They would have reasonedabout both, and found out Truths: are both Constitutions alike reasonable to these Observers? No, say they, “the benevolent one is reasonable, and [247] the malicious unreasonable:” And yet these Observers reasonedand discovered Truths about both: An Action then is called by us reasonable when ’tis benevolent, and unreasonable when malicious. This is plainly making the Word reasonable denote whatever is approvedby our moral Sense, without Relation to true Propositions. We often use that Word in such a confused Manner: But these antecedent Natures, supposed without a moral Sense, would not have approvedone Constitution of the Deity as morally better than another.
Had it been left to the Choice of these antecedent Minds, what manner of Sense [242] they would have desired for Mankind; would they have seen no difference? Yes they would, according to their Affections which are presupposed in all Election. If they were benevolent, as we suppose the Deity, the Tendency of the present Sense to the Happiness of Men would have excited their Choice. Had they been malicious, as we suppose the Devil, the contrary Tendency of the contrary Sense would have excited their Election of it. But is there nothing preferable, or eligible antecedently to all Affections too? No certainly, unless there can be Desire without Affections, or superior Desire, i. e. Election antecedently to all Desire.
Reasons for Election different from those for Approbation.[248] Some do farther perplex this Subject, by asserting, that “the same Reasons determining Approbation, ought also to excite to Election.” Here, 1. We often see justifying Reasons where we can have no Election; viz. when we observe the Actions of others, which were even prior to our Existence. 2. The Quality moving us to Election very often cannot excite Approbation; viz. private usefulness, not publickly pernicious. This both does and ought to move Election, and yet I believe few will say, “they approve as virtuous the eating a Bunch of Grapes, taking a Glass of Wine, or sitting down when [243] one is tired.” Approbation is not what we can voluntarily bring upon our selves. When we are contemplating Actions, we do not chuse to approve, because Approbation is pleasant; otherwise we would always approve, and never condemn any Action; because this is some way uneasy. Approbation is plainly a Perception arising without previous Volition, or Choice of it, because of any concomitant Pleasure. The Occasion of it is the Perception of benevolent Affections in our selves, or the discovering the like in others, even when we are incapable of any Action or Election. The Reasons determining Approbation are such as shew that an Action evidenced kind Affections, and that in others, as often as in our [249] selves. Whereas, the Reasons moving to Election are such as shew the Tendency of an Action to gratify some Affection in the Agent.
The Prospect of the Pleasure of Self‐Approbation, is indeed often a Motive to chuse one Action rather than another; but this supposes the moral Sense, or Determination to approve, prior to the Election. Were Approbation voluntarily chosen, from the Prospect of its concomitant Pleasure, then there could [244] be no Condemnation of our own Actions, for that is unpleasant.
As to that confused Word [ought] ’tis needless to apply to it again all that was said about Obligation.
section ii
Concerning that Character of Virtue and Vice, The Fitness or Unfitness of Actions.
The Fitness and Unfitness in Morals.[245/250] We come next to examine some other Explications of Morality, which have been much insisted on of late. We are told, “that there are eternal and immutable Differences of Things, absolutely and antecedently: that there are also eternal and unalterable Relations in the Natures of the Things themselves, from which arise Agreements and Disagreements, Congruities and Incongruities, Fitness and Unfitness of the Application of Circumstances, to the Qualifications of Persons; that Actions agreeable to these Relations are morally Good, and that the contrary Actions are morally Evil.” These Expressions are sometimes made of the same Import with those more common ones: “acting agreeably to the eternal Reason and Truth [246] of Things.” ’Tis is asserted, that [251] “God who knows all these Relations, &c. does guide his Actions by them, since he has no wrong Affection” (the Word [wrong] should have been first explained): “And that in like manner these Relations, &c. ought” (another unlucky Word in Morals) “to determine the Choice of all Rationals, abstractly from any Views of Interest. If they do not, these Creatures are insolently counteracting their Creator, and as far as they can, making things to be what they are not, which is the greatest Impiety.”
That Things are now different is certain. That Ideas, to which there is no Object yet existing conformable, are also different, is certain. That upon comparing two Ideas there arises a relative Idea, generally when the two Ideas compared have in them any Modes of the same simple Idea, is also obvious. Thus every extended Being may be compared to any other of the same Kinds of Dimensions; and relative Ideas be formed of greater, less, equal, double, triple, subduple, &c. with infinite variety. This may let us see that Relations are not real Qualities inherent in external Natures, but only Ideas necessarily accompanying our Perception of two Objects at once, and comparing them. Relative Ideas do continue, when the external [247] Objects do not exist, provided [252] we retain the two Ideas. But what the eternal Relations in the Natures of Things do mean, is not so easy perhaps to be conceived.
Three sorts of Relationsconsidered.To shew particularly how far Morality can be concerned in Relations, we may consider them under these Three Classes. 1. The Relations of inanimate Objects, as to their Quantity, or active and passive Powers, as explained by Mr. Locke.”2. The Relations of inanimate Objects to rational Agents, as to their active or passive Powers.3. The Relations of rational Agents among themselves, founded on their Powers or Actions past or continued. Now let us examine what Fitnesses or Unfitnesses arise from any of these sorts of Relations, in which the Morality of Actions may consist; and whether we can place Morality in them, without presupposing a moral Sense. ’Tis plain, that ingenious Author says nothing against the Supposition of a moral Sense: But many do imagine, that his Account of moral Ideas is independent upon a moral Sense, and therefore are less willing to allow that we have such an immediate Perception, or Sense of Virtue and Vice. What follows is not intended to oppose his Scheme, but rather to suggest what seems a necessary Explication of it; by shewing that it is no otherwise intelligible, [248/253] but upon Supposition of a moral Sense.
None of them explain Morality without a Sense.1. Relations of inanimate Objects being known, puts it in the Power of a rational Agent often to diversify them, to change their Forms, Motions, or Qualities of any kind, at his pleasure: but no body apprehends any Virtue or Vice in such Actions, where no Relation is apprehended to a rational Agent’s Happiness or Misery; otherwise we should have got into the Class of Virtues all the practical Mathematicks, and the Operations of Chymistry.
2. As to the Relations of inanimate Objects to rational Agents; the Knowledge of them equally puts it in one’s Power to destroy Mankind, as to preserve them. Without presupposing Affections, this Knowledge will not excite to one Action rather than another; nor without a moral Sense will it make us approve any Action more than its contrary. The Relation of Corn to human Bodies being known to a Person of kind Affections, was perhaps the exciting Reason of teaching Mankind Husbandry: But the Knowledge of the Relations of Arsenick would excite a malicious Nature, just in the same manner, to the greatest Mischief. A Sword, an Halter, a Musket, bear the same Relation [249] to the Body of an Hero, which they [254] do to a Robber. The killing of either is equally agreeable to these Relations, but not equally goodin a moral Sense. The Knowledge of these Relations neither excites to Actions, nor justifies them, without presupposing either Affections or a moral Sense. Kind Affections with such Knowledge makes Heroes; malicious Affections, Villains.
3. The last sort of Relations is that among rational Agents, founded on their Actions or Affections; whence one is called Creator, another Creature; one Benefactor, the other Beneficiary (if that Word may be used in this general Sense;) the one Parent, the other Child; the one Governor, the other Subject, &c. Now let us see what Fitnesses or Unfitnesses arise from these Relations.
There is certainly, independently of Fancy or Custom, a natural Tendency in some Actions to give Pleasure, either to the Agent or to others; and a contrary Tendency in other Actions to give Pain, either to the Agent or others: This sort of Relation of Actions to the Agents or Objects is indisputable. If we call these Relations Fitnesses, then the most contrary Actions have equal Fitnesses for contrary Ends; and each one is unfit for the End of [250] the other. Thus Compassion is fit to make others happy, and unfit to make others miserable. Violation of[255] Property is fit to make Men miserable, and unfit to make them happy. Each of these is both fit and unfit, with respect to different Ends. The bare Fitness then to an End, is not the Idea of moral Goodness.
Perhaps the virtuous Fitness is that of Ends. The Fitness of a subordinate Endto the ultimate, cannot constitute the Action good, unless the ultimate Endbe good. To keep a Conspiracy secret is not a good End, tho it be fit for obtaining a farther End, the Success of the Conspiracy. The moral Fitness must be that of the ultimate Enditself: The publick Goodalone is a fit End, therefore the Means fit for this Endalone are good.
What means the Fitness of an ultimate End? For what is it fit? Why, ’tis an ultimate End, not fit for any thing farther, but absolutely fit. What means that Word fit? If it notes a simple Idea it must be the Perception of some Sense: thus we must recur, upon this Scheme too, to a moral Sense.
Agreement with Relations presupposes also a moral Sense.[256] If Fitness be not a simple Idea, let it be defined. Some tell us, that it is “an Agreement of an Affection, Desire, [251] Action, or End, to the Relations of Agents.” But what means Agreement? Which of these four Meanings has it? 1. We say one Quantity agrees with another of equal Dimensions every way. 2. A Corollary agrees with a Theorem; when our knowing the latter to be Truth, leads us to know that the former is also a true Proposition.3.Meat agrees with that Body which it tends to preserve.4. Meat agrees with the Taste of that Being in whom it raises a pleasant Perception. If any one of these are the Meanings of Agreement in the Definition, then one of these is the Idea of Fitness.1. That an Action or Affection is of the same Bulk and Figure with the Relation. Or, 2. When the Relation is a true Proposition, so is the Action or Affection. Or, 3. The Action or Affection tends to preserve the Relation; and contrary Actions would destroy it: So that, for instance, God would be no longer related to us as Creator and Benefactor, when we disobeyed him. Or, 4. The Action raises pleasant Perceptions in the Relation. All these Expressions seem absurd.
[257] These Gentlemen probably have some other Meanings to these Words Fitness or Agreement. I hope what is said will shew the need for Explication of them, tho they be so common. There is one Meaning [252] perhaps intended, however it be obscurely expressed, That “certain Affections or Actions of an Agent, standing in a certain Relation to other Agents, is approvedby every Observer, or raises in him a grateful Perception, or moves the Observer to love the Agent.” This Meaning is the same with the Notion of pleasing a moral Sense.
Whoever explains Virtue or Vice by Justice or Injustice, Right or Wrong, uses only more ambiguous Words, which will equally lead to acknowledge a moral Sense.
section iii
Mr. Woolaston’s Significancy of Truth, as the Idea of Virtue considered
[253/258] Mr. Woolaston has introduced a new Explication of moral Virtue, viz. Significancy of Truth in Actions, supposing that in every Action there is some Significancy, like to that which Moralists and Civilians speak of in their Tacit Conventions, and Quasi Contractus!
Signification wherein it consists.The Word Signification is very common, but a little Reflection will shew it to be very ambiguous. In Signification of Words these things are included: 1. An Association of an Idea with a Sound, so that when any Idea is formed by the Speaker, the Idea of a Soundaccompanies it. 2. The Sound perceivedby the Hearer excites the Idea to which it is connected. 3. In like manner a Judgment in the Speaker’s Mind is accompanyed with the Idea of a Combination of Sounds. 4. This Combination of[254] Sounds heard raises the Apprehension of that Judgment [259] in the Mind of the Hearer. Nothing farther than these Circumstances seems to be denoted by Signification.
Conclusions drawn from Speech.Hearing a Proposition does not of itself produce either Assent or Dissent, or Opinion in the Hearer, but only presents to his Apprehension the Judgment, or Thema Complexum. But the Hearer himself often forms Judgments or Opinions upon this occasion, either immediately without Reasoning, or by some short Argument. These Opinions are some one or more of the following Propositions.1.That a Sound is perceived, and a Judgment apprehended.2.Such a Person caused the Sound heard. 3. The Speaker intended to excite in the Hearer the Idea of the Sound, and the Apprehension of the Judgment, or Thema Complexum. This Judgment is not always formed by the Hearer, nor is it always true, when Men are heard speaking. 4.The Speaker intended to produce Assent in the Hearer: This Judgment is not always true. 5.The Speaker assents to the Proposition spoken: This Judgment in the Hearer is often false, and is formed upon Opinion of the Speaker’s Veracity, or speaking what expresses his Opinion usually. 6.The Speaker does not assent to the Proposition spoken: This Judgment of the Hearer is often false, when [255] what is spoken is every way [260] true. 7.The Speaker intended that the Hearer should believe or judge, “that the Proposition spoken was assented to by the Speaker.”8.The Speaker had the contrary Intention, to that supposed in the last Judgment: Both these latter Judgments may be false, when the Proposition spoken is every way true.9.The Proposition spoken represents the Object as it is, or is logically true.10.The Proposition spoken does not represent the Object as it is, or it is logically false.
Morality does not consist in Significancy.As to the first four Circumstances which make up the proper Significancy of Speech, ’tis scarce possible that any one should place moral Goodor Evil in them. Whether the Proposition were logically true or false, the having a bare Apprehension of it as a Thema Complexum, or raising this in another, without intending to produce Assent or Dissent, can have no more moral Goodor Evil in it, than the Reception of any other Idea, or raising it in another. This Significancy of Falshoodis found in the very Propositions given in Schools, as Instances of Falshood, Absurdity, Contradiction to Truth, or Blasphemy. The pronouncing of which, are Actions signifying more properly than most of our other Actions; and yet no body condemns them as immoral.
Nor in Conclusions formed by Hearers.[256 ] As to the Opinions formed by the Hearer, they are all his own Action as much as [261] any other Conclusion or Judgment formed from Appearances of any sort whatsoever. They are true or false, according to the Sagacity of the Observer, or his Caution. The Hearer may form perfectly true Opinions or Judgments, when the Speaker is guilty of the basest Fraud; and may form false Judgments, when the Speaker is perfectly innocent, and spoke nothing false in any Sense.
The Evils which may follow from the false Judgments of the Hearer, are no otherwise chargeable on the Speaker, than as the evil Consequences of another’s Action of any kind may be chargeable upon any Person who co‐operated; or, by his Action, or Omission, the Consequence of which he might have foreseen, did either actually intendthis Evil, or wanted that Degree of kind Affection, which would have inclined him to have prevented it.
The Morality of Speech in the Intention.The Intention of the Speaker is what all Moralists have hitherto imagined the Virtue or Vice of Words did depend upon, and not the bare Significancy of Truth or Falshood. This Intention is either, 1.To lead the Hearer into a true or false Opinion about the Sentiments of the Speaker. [257] 2.To make the Hearer assent to the Proposition spoken. Or, 3.Both to make the Hearer assent to the Proposition, and judge that the [262] Speaker also assents to it. Or, 4.To accomplish some End, by means of the Hearer’s assent to the Proposition spoken. This End may be known by the Speaker to be either publickly useful, or publickly hurtful.
Some Moralists of late have placed all Virtue in Speech in the Intention of the last kind, viz. “Accomplishing some publickly useful End, by speaking either logical Truth or Falshood: and that all Vice in speaking, consists in intending to effect something publickly hurtful by Speech, whether logically true or false, and known to be such; or by using Speech in a manner which we may foresee would be publickly hurtful, whether we actually intendthis evil Consequence or not.” Some stricter Moralists assert, that “the publick Evils which would ensue from destroying mutual Confidence, by allowing to speak Propositions known to be false on any occasion, are so great, that no particular Advantage to be expected from speaking known logical Falshoods, can ever over‐ballance [258] them; that all use of Speech supposes a tacit Convention of Sincerity, the Violation of which is always evil.” Both sides in this Argument agree, that the moral Evil in Speech consists either in some direct malicious Intention, or a Tendency to the publick Detriment of [263] Society; which Tendency the Agent might have foreseen, as connected with his Action, had he not wantedthat Degree of good Affections which makes Men attentive to the Effects of their Actions. Never was bare Significancy of Falshoodmade the Idea of moral Evil. Speaking logical Falshoodwas still looked upon as innocent in many cases. Speaking contrary to Sentiment, or moral Falshood, was always proved evil, from some publickly hurtful Tendency, and not supposed as evil immediately, or the same Idea with Vice. The Intention to deceive was the Foundation of the Guilt. This Intention the Speaker studies to conceal, and does not signify it: It is an Act of the Will, neither signifiedby his Words, nor itself signifying any thing else.
This Point deserved Consideration, because if any Action be significant, ’tis certainly the Act of Speaking: And yet even in this the Virtue is not the signifying of Truth, nor the Vice the signifying Falshood.
The Significancy of Actions.[259] The Signification of some Actions depends upon a like Association of Ideas with them, made either by Nature, or arbitrarily, and by Custom, as with Sounds. Letters are by Custom the Signs of Sounds. A Shriek or Groan is a natural Sign of Fear or Pain: A Motion of the Handor Headmay signify [264] Assent, Dissent, or Desire. The cutting down tall Poppies was an answer: The sending Spurs, advice to Flight: Kindling many Fires raises the Opinion of an Encampment: Raising a Smoke will raise Opinion of Fire.
The most important Distinction of Signs is this, that1. “Some Appearances are the Occasion upon which an Observer, by his own reasoning, forms a Judgment, without supposing, or having reason to believe, that the Agent, who caused these Appearances, did it with design to communicate his Sentiments to others; or when the Actions are such as are usually done by the Agents, without designing to raise Opinions in Observers. 2. Some Actions are never used but with professed Design to convey the Opinions of the Agent to the Observer; or such as the Observer [260] infers nothing from, but upon having reason to believe that the Causer of the Appearance intended to convey some Sentiment to the Observer.” 3. Other Signs are used, when “the Signifier gives no reason to conclude any other Intention, but only to raise an Apprehension of the Judgment, or the Thema Complexum, without professing any design to communicate [265] his Sentiments, or to produce any Assent in the Observer.”
To do Actions from which the Observer will form false Opinions, without having reason to imagine an Intention in the Agent, is never of itself imagined evil, let the Signs be natural or instituted; provided there be no malicious Intention, or neglect of publick Good. ’Tis never called a Crime in a Teacher, to pronounce an absurd Sentence for an instance; in a Nobleman, to travel without Coronets; or a Clergyman in Lay‐Habit, for private Conveniency, or to avoid troublesome Ceremony; to leave Lights in a Lodge, to make People conclude there is a Watch kept. This Significancy may be in any Action which is observed; but as true Conclusions argue no Virtue in the Agent, so false ones argue no Vice.
Raising false Opinions designedly by the second Sort of Signs, which reasonably [261] lead the Observer to conclude Intention in the Agent to communicate his Sentiments, whether the Signs be customary, instituted, or natural, is generally evil, when the Agent knows the Falshood; since it tends to diminish mutual Confidence. To send Spurs to a Friend, whom the Sender imagines to be in no danger, to deceive by Hieroglyphicks or Painting, is as criminal [266] as a false Letter. This Significancy occurs in very few human Actions: Some of the most important Virtues profess no design of communicating Sentiments, or raising Opinions either true or false: Nor is there any more Intention in some of the most vicious Actions. Again, who can imagine any Virtue, in all Actions, where there is this Significancy of Truth with Intention? Is it Virtue to say at Christmas, that “the Mornings are sharp?” to beckon with the Hand, in sign of Assent to such an Assertion? And in false Propositions thus signified by Actions or Words, there is no Evil apprehended where the Falshoodis only logical. When the Falshood is known by the Agent, the Evil is not imagined in the Significancy, but in doing what one may foresee tends to breed Distrust in Society. And did all moral Evil consist in moral Falshood, there could be no Sins of Ignorance. If Mr. Woolaston alledges, that “Ignorance of some things signifies this Falshood, viz. We are not [262] obliged to know the Truth:” This Falshood is not signified with Intention; nor is it moral Falshood, but only logical: since no Man in an Error knows that “he is obliged to know the contrary Truth,” Mr. Woolaston’s use of the Words [ought] or [obliged] without a distinct Meaning, is not peculiar to this Place.
[267] The third sort of Significancy of Falsehoodis never apprehended as morally Evil: if it were, then every Dramatick Writer drawing evil Characters, every History Painter, every Writer of Allegories, or Epicks, every Philosopher teaching the Nature of contradictory Propositions, would be thought criminal.
Significancy different from the Morality.But since only the first sort of Significancy can be in all Actions, and that too supposing that every Action whatsoever is observedby some Being or other: Let us see if this will account for Morality. Perhaps either, 1st, “Every Action is goodwhich leads the Observer into true Opinions concerning the Sentiments of the Agent, whether the Agent’s Opinions be true or false.” Or, 2dly. “That Action is good which leads the Observer into true Opinions concerning the Object, the Tendency of the Action, and the Relation between the Agent and the Object.”
[263] Did Virtue consist in this first sort of Significancy of Truth, it would depend not upon the Agent but the Sagacity of the Observer: The acute Penetration of one would constitute an Action virtuous, and the Rashness or Stupidity of another would make it vicious: And the most barbarous Actions [268] would raise no false Opinion of the Sentiments of the Agent, in a judicious Observer.
The second sort of Significancy would also make Virtue consist in the Power of Observers. An exact Reasoner would receive no false Opinion from the worst Action concerning the Object or Relation of the Agent to it: And a false Opinion might be formed by a weak Observer of a perfectly good Action.—An Observer who knew an Agent to have the basest Temper, would not from his worst Action conclude any thing false concerning the Object: And all such false Opinions would arise only upon Supposition that the Agent was virtuous.
But may it not be said, that “whether Men reason well about Actions or not, there are some Conclusions really deducible from every Action? It is a Datum from which something may be inferred by just Consequence, whether any one [264] actually infers it or not. Then may not this Quality in Actions, whether we call it Significancy or not, that only true Propositions can be inferred from them by just Reasoning, be moral Goodness? And may it not be the very Idea of moral Evil in Actions, that some false Conclusions [269] can by just Consequence, be deduced from them? ” Or if we will not allow these to be the very Ideas of moral Good and Evil, “are they not universal just Characters to distinguish the one from the other?”
One may here observe in general, that since the Existence of the Action is supposed to be a true Premise or Datum, no false Conclusion can possibly be inferred from it by just Reasoning. We could perhaps often justly infer, that the Agent had false Opinions; but then this Conclusion of the Observer, viz. “that the Agent has false Opinions,” is really true.
True Conclusions deducible from Actions, no just Character of Virtue.But again, it will not make an universal Character of good Actions, that a just Reasoner would infer from them, that “the Opinions of the Agent are true.” For it is thus Men must reason from Actions; viz. Given the Constitution of Nature, the Affections of Agents, and the Action, to conclude concerning the Opinions: Or more generally given any three [265] of these to conclude the fourth. Thus suppose the “Constitution of Nature such, that the private Interest of each Individual is connected with the publick Good:” Suppose an Agent’s Affections selfish only, then from a publickly useful [270] Action we infer, that “the Agent’s Opinions are true:” And from a publickly hurtful Action conclude his Opinions to be false.
The same Constitution supposed with publick Affections as well as selfish. The observing a kind or publickly useful Action, will not immediately infer, that the Agent’s Opinions are either true or false: With false Opinions he might do publickly useful Actions out of his publick Affections, in those cases wherein they are not apparently opposite to his Interest. A publick Action opposite to some present private Interest, would generally evidence true Opinions; or if the Opinions were false, that his publick Affections were in this Case much stronger than his Self‐Love. A cruel Action would indeed evidence false Opinions.
Suppose the same Constitution in all other respects, with malicious Affections in an Agent. A cruel or ungrateful Action would not always prove the Opinions of the Agent to be false; but only that his [266] Malice in this instance, was more violent than regard to his Interest. A beneficent Action would prove only one of these two, either that his Opinions of the Constitution were true; or, that if [271] he was mistaken about the Constitution, he had also a false Opinion of the natural Tendency of the Action. Thus false Opinions may be evidenced by contrary Actions.
Suppose “a Constitution wherein a private Interest could be advanced in Opposition to the publick” (this we may call an evil Constitution:) Suppose only Self‐Love in the Agent, then a publickly useful Action, any way toilsome or expensive to the Agent, would evidence false Opinions: And the most cruel selfish Actions would evidence true Opinions.
In an evil Constitution, suppose kind Affections in the Agent; a publickly useful Action would not certainly argue either true or false Opinions. If his Opinions were true, but kind Affections stronger than SelfLove, he might act in the same manner, as if his Opinions were false, and Self‐Love the reigning Affection.
In an evil Constitution, suppose malicious Affections in an Agent, all publickly useful Actions would argue false Opinions; [267] and publickly hurtful Actions would argue true ones.
[272] This may shew us that Mens Actions are generally publickly useful, when they have true Opinions, only on this account; that we neither have malicious Affections naturally, nor is there any probability, in our present Constitution, of promoting a private Interest separately from, or in Opposition to the Publick. Were there contrary Affections and a contrary Constitution, the most cruel Actions might flow from true Opinions; and consequently publickly useful Actions might flow from false ones.
How far it is a Character of Virtue, that it flows from true Opinions.In our present Constitution, ’tis probable no Person would ever do anything publickly hurtful, but upon some false Opinion. The flowing from true Opinions is indeed a tolerable Character or Property of Virtue, and flowing from some false Opinion a tolerable Character of Vice; tho neither be strictly universal. But, 1. This is not proper Signification. A judicious Observer never imagines any Intention to communicate Opinions in some of the most important Actions, either goodor evil.2. Did an Action signify Falshood, ’tis generally only logical.3. The false Opinion in the Agent is not the Quality for which the evil Action is condemned; nor is the [268] true Opinion that for which the good Action is approved. True Opinions in Agents [273] often aggravate Crimes, as they shew higher Degrees of evil Affection, or total Absence of good. And false Opinions generally extenuate Crimes, unless when the very Ignorance or Error has flowed from evil Affection, or total Absence of good.
’Tis surprizing, for instance, how any should place the Evil of Ingratitude in denying the Person injured, to have been a Benefactor. The Observer of such an Action, if he supposed the Agent had really that false Opinion, would think the Crime the less for it: But if he were convinced that the Agent had a true Opinion, he would think his Ingratitude the more odious. Where we most abhor Actions, we suppose often true Opinions: And sometimes admire Actions flowing even from false Opinions, when they have evidenced no want of good Affection.
To write a Censure upon a Book so well designed as Mr. Woolaston’s, and so full of very good Reasoning upon the most useful Subjects, would not evidence much good Nature. But allowing him his just Praise, to remark any Ambiguities or Inadvertencies which may lead Men into Confusion in their Reasoning, I am confident would [269] have been acceptable to a Man of so much Goodness, when he was living.
[274] One may see that he has had some other Idea of moral Good, previous to this Significancy of Truth, by his introducing, in the very Explication of it, Words presupposing the Ideas of Morality previously known: Such as [Right,] [Obligation,] [Lye,] [his] denoting [Property.]
Signifying of Truth equal in unequal Virtue.Mr. Woolaston acknowledges that there may be very little evil in some Actions signifying Falshood; such as throwing away that which is of but little Use or Value. It is objected to him, that there is equal Contrariety to Truth in such Actions, as in the greatest Villany: He, in answer to it, really unawares gives up his whole Cause. He must own, that there may be the strictest Truth and Certainty about Trifles; so there may be the most obvious Falshoodsignified by trifling Actions. If then Significancy of Falshoodbe the very same with moral Evil, all Crimes must be equal. He answers, that Crimes increase according to the Importance of the Truth denied; and so the Virtue increases, as the Importance of the Truths affirmed. Then
[270] Virtue and Vice increase, as the Importance of Propositions affirmed or denied;
[275]But Signification of Truth and Falshooddoes not so increase:
Therefore Virtue and Vice are not the same with Signification of Truth or Falshood.
But what is this Importance of Truth? Nothing else but the Moment or Quantity of good or evil, either private or publick, which should be produced by Actions, concerning which these true Judgments are made. But it is plain, the Signification of Truth or Falshood is not varied by this Importance; therefore Virtue or Vice denote something different from this Signification.
But farther, The Importance of Actions toward publick Good or Evil, is not the Idea of Virtue or Vice: Nor does the one prove Virtue in an Action, any farther than it evidences kind Affections; or the other Vice, farther than it evidences either Malice or Want of kind Affections: Otherwise a casual Invention, an Action wholly from views of private Interest, might be as virtuous as the most kindand generous Offices: And Chance-Medley, or kindly‐intended, but unsuccessful Attempts [271] would be as vicious as Murder or Treason.
Some Ambiguities in Mr. Woolaston.One of Mr. Woolaston’s Illustrations that Significancy of Falshoodis the Idea of moral [276] Evil, ends in this, “’Tis acting a Lye.” What then? Should he not first have shewn what was moral Evil, and that every Lye was such?
Another Illustration or Proof is that, “it is acting contrary to that Reason whichGodhas given us as the Guide of our Actions.” Does not this place the original Idea of moral Evil in counteracting theDeity, and not in signifying Falshood? But, he may say, “Counteracting the Deity denies him to be our Benefactor, and signifies Falshood.” Then why is signifying Falshoodevil? Why, ’tis counteracting theDeity, who gave us Reason for our Guide. Why is this evil again? It denies the Truth, that “he is our Benefactor.”
Another Illustration is this, “That signifying Falshood is altering the Natures of Things, and making them be what they are not, or desiring at least to make them be what they are not.” If by altering the Natures be meant destroying Beings, then moral Evil consists in desiring the Destruction of other Natures, [272] or in Evil Affections. If what is meant be altering the Laws of Nature, or desiring that they were stopped; this is seldom desired by any but Madmen, nor is this Desire evidenced by some of the [277] worst Actions, nor is such Desire always criminal; otherwise it were as great a Crime as any, to wish, when a Dam was broken down, that the Water would not overflow the Country.
If making Things be what they are not, means “attempting or desiring that any Subject should have two opposite Qualities at once, or a Quality and its Privation;” ’tis certain then, that according to the Stoicks, all vicious Men are thorowly mad. But ’tis to be doubted, that such Madness never happened to even the worst of Mankind. When a Man murders, he does not desire his Fellow‐Creature to be both deadand living. When he robs, he does not desire that both he and the Proprietor should at the same time possess. If any says, that he desires to have a Right to that, to which another has a Right; ’tis probably false. Robbers neither think of Rights at all, nor are solicitous about acquiring them: Or, if they retain some wild Notions of Rights, they think their Indigence, Conquest or Courage gives them a Right, and makes the other’s Right to cease. If attempting to make [273] old Qualities or Rights give place to new, be the Idea of moral Evil, then every Artificer, Purchaser, or Magistrate invested with an Office is criminal.
[278] Many of Mr. Woolaston’s Propositions contradicted by Actions, are about Rights, Duties, Obligation, Justice, Reasonableness. These are long Words, principal Names, or Attributes in Sentences. The little Word [his,] or the Particles [as, according] are much better: they may escape Observation, and yet may include all the Ambiguities of Right, Property, Agreement, Reasonableness: “Treating Things as they are, and not as they are not:” Or, “According to what they are, or are not,” are Expressions he probably had learned from another truly great Name, who has not explained them sufficiently.
In Quasi Contracts, or Tacit, no Signification of Truth.It may perhaps not seem improper on this occasion to observe, that in the Quasi Contractus, the Civilians do not imagine any Act of the Mind of the Person obligedto be really signified, but by a sort of Fictio juris supposing it, order him to act as if he had contracted, even when they know that he had contrary Intentions.
In the Tacit Conventions, ’tis not a Judgment which is signified, but an Act of the Will transferring Right, in which [274] there is no Relation to Truth or Falshoodof itself. The Non‐performance of Covenants is made [279] penal, not because of their signifying Falshoods, as if this were the Crime in them: But it is necessary, in order to preserve Commerce in any Society, to make effectual all Declarations of Consent to transfer Rights by any usual Signs, otherwise there could be no Certainty in Mens Transactions.
section iv
Shewing the Use of Reason concerning Virtue and Vice, upon Supposition that we receive these Ideas by a Moral Sense.
Truths about Morals, four sorts.[275/280] Had those who insist so much upon the antecedent Reasonableness of Virtue, told us distinctly what is reasonable or provable concerning it, many of our Debates had been prevented. Let us consider what Truths concerning Actions Men could desire to know, or prove by Reason. I fancy they may be reduced to these Heads. 1. “To know whether there are not some Actions or Affections which obtain the Approbation of any Spectator or Observer, and others move his Dislike and Condemnation? ” This Question, as every Man can answer for himself, so universal Experience and History shew, that in all Nations it is so; and consequently the moral Sense is universal.2. “Whether there be any particular Quality, which, wherever it is apprehended, gains Approbation, and the contrary raises Disapprobation? ” We shall [276] find this Quality to be kind Affection, [281] or Study of the Good of others; and thus the moral Senses of Men are generally uniform. About these two Questions there is little reasoning; we know how to answer them from reflecting on our own Sentiments, or by consulting others. 3. “What Actions do really evidence kind Affections, or do really tend to the greatest publick Good?” About this Question is all the special Reasoning of those who treat of the particular Laws of Nature, or even of Civil Laws: This is the largest Field, and the most useful Subject of Reasoning, which remains upon every Scheme of Morals. 4. “What are the Motives which, even from Self‐Love, would excite each Individual to do those Actions which are publickly useful?” ’Tis probable indeed, no Man would approve as virtuous an Action publickly useful, to which the Agent was excited only by Self‐Love, without any kind Affection: ’Tis also probable that no view of Interest can raise that kind Affection, which we approve as virtuous; nor can any Reasoning do it, except that which shews some moral Goodness, or kind Affections in the Object; for this never fails, where it is observed or supposed in any Person to raise the Love of the Observer; so that Virtue is not properly taught.
[277/282] Yet since all Men have naturally Self‐Love as well as kind Affections, the former may often counteract the latter, or the latter the former; in each case the Agent is uneasy, and in some degree unhappy. The first rash Views of human Affairs often represent private Interest as opposite to the Publick: When this is apprehended, Self‐Love may often engage Men in publickly hurtful Actions, which their moral Sense will condemn; and this is the ordinary Cause of Vice. To represent these Motives of Self‐Interest, to engage Men to publickly useful Actions, is certainly the most necessary Point in Morals. This has been so well done by the antient Moralists, by Dr. Cumberland, Puffendorf, Grotius, Shaftesbury; ’tis made so certain from the divine Government of the World, the State of Mankind, who cannot subsist without Society, from universal Experience and Consent, from inward Consciousness of the Pleasure of kind Affections, and Self‐Approbation, and of the Torments of Malice, or Hatred, or Envy, or Anger; that no Man who considers these things, can ever imagine he can have any possible Interest in opposing the publick Good; or in checking or restraining his kind Affections; nay, if he had no kind Affections, his very Self‐Love and Regard to his private Good might excite [278] him to publickly [283] useful Actions, and dissuade from the contrary.
What farther should be provable concerning Virtue, whence it should be called reasonable antecedently to all Affection, or Interest, or Sense, or what it should be fit for, one cannot easily imagine.
Perhaps what has brought the Epithet Reasonable, or flowing from Reason, in opposition to what flows from Instinct, Affection, or Passion, so much into use, is this, “That it is often observed, that the very best of our particular Affections or Desires, when they are grown violent and passionate, thro’ the confused Sensations and Propensities which attend them, do make us incapable of considering calmly the whole Tendency of our Actions, and lead us often into what is absolutely pernicious, under some Appearance of relative or particular Good.” This indeed may give some ground for distinguishing between passionate Actions, and those from calm Desire or Affection which employs our Reason freely: But can never set rational Actions in Opposition to those from Instinct, Desire or Affection. And it must be owned, that the most perfect Virtue consists in the calm, unpassionate Benevolence, [279] rather than in particular Affections.
How we judge of our Moral Sense.[284] If one asks “how do we know that our Affections are right when they are kind?” What does the Word [right] mean? Does it mean what we approve? This we know by Consciousness of our Sense. Again, how do we know that our Sense is right, or that we approve our Approbation? This can only be answered by another Question, viz. “How do we know we are pleased when we are pleased?”—Or does it mean, “how do we know that we shall always approve what we now approve?” To answer this, we must first know that the same Constitution of our Sense shall always remain: And again, that we have applyed our selves carefully to consider the natural Tendency of our Actions. Of the Continuance of the sam
Titles (by Subject) 
