Moral philosophy, or, The duties of man considered in his individual, domestic, and social capacities / by George Combe.

  • Combe, George, 1788-1858.
Date:
1882
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Moral philosophy, or, The duties of man considered in his individual, domestic, and social capacities / by George Combe. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    24/365 (page 16)
    Our first inquiry is into the basis of morals regarded as a science, that is, into the natural foundations of moral obligation. There are two questions—very similar in terms, but widely different in substance—which we must carefully distinguish. The one is, What actions are virtuous ? and the other, What constitutes them virtuous ? The answer to the first question, fortunately, is not difficult. Most individuals acknowledge that it is virtuous to love our neighbor, to reward a benefactor, to discharge our proper obligations, to love God and so forth; and that the opposite actions are vicious. But when the second question is put—Why is an action virtuous—why is it virtuous to love our neighbor, or to manifest gratitude or piety ? the most con- tradictory answers are given by philosophers. The discovery of what constitutes virtue is a fundamental point in moral philosophy; and hence the difficulties of the subject meet us at the very threshold of our inquiries. It is generally admitted that man has received definite mental and bodily constitutions; and it is in them and their relations that we must seek for the natural foundations of virtue. The knowledge of these constitutions possessed by philosophers has been very imperfect; and hence has arisen much of the obscurity of moral science. Philosophers have never been agreed about the existence or non- existence in man even of the most important moral emotions — such as benevolence, and the sentiment of justice; and being un- certain whether such emotions exist or not, they have had no stable ground from which to start in their inquiries into the foundation of virtue. Since the publication of the writings of Hobbes, in the 17th century, there has.been a constant series of disputes among philos- ophers on this subject. Hobbes taught that the laws which the civil magistrate enjoins are the ultimate standards of morality. Qudworth endeavored to show that the origin of our notions of right and wrong is to be found in a particular faculty of the mind which distinguishes truth from falsehood. Mandeville declares that the moral virtues are mere sacrifices of self-interest made for the sake of public approbation, and calls virtue the “political offspring which flattery begot upon pride.” Dr. Clarke supposes virtue to consist in acting according to the fitnesses oflmngs. Mr. Hume endeavored to prove that “utility' is the constituent or measure of virtue.” Dr. Hutcheson maintains that it originates in the dictates of a moral sense. Dr. Palev does not admit such a faculty, but declares virtue to consist “in doing good to mankind in obedience to the will of God, and for the sake of everlasting happi- ness.” Dr. Adam Smith endeavors to show that sympathy is the source of moral approbation. Dr. Reid, Mr. Stewart, and Dr. Thomas