Philosophy and Religion: Six Lectures Delivered at CambridgeRashdall, Hastings
Religion
Philosophy and Religion: Six Lectures Delivered at Cambridge
Rashdall, Hastings
Christianity; Philosophy and religion
possible that another person might feel an equally satisfactory glow of
approbation at conduct of a precisely opposite character _without
either of them being wrong_. A bull-fight fills most Spaniards with
feelings of lively approbation, and most Englishmen with feelings of
acute disapprobation. If such moral judgements were mere feelings,
neither of them would be wrong. There could be no question of
objective rightness or wrongness. Mustard is not objectively nice or
objectively nasty: it is simply nice to some people and nasty to
others. The mustard-lover has no right to condemn the mustard-hater,
or the mustard-hater the mustard-lover. If Morality were merely a
matter of feeling or emotion, actions would not be objectively right or
objectively wrong; but simply right to some people, wrong to others.
Hume would be right in holding the morality of an action to consist
simply in the pleasure it gives to the person who {72} contemplates it.
Rightness thus becomes simply a name for the fact of social
approbation.[2] And yet surely the very heart of the affirmation which
the moral consciousness makes in each of us is that right and wrong are
not matters of mere subjective feeling. When I assert 'this is right,'
I do not claim personal infallibility. I may, indeed, be wrong, as I
may be wrong in my political or scientific theories. But I do mean
that I think I am right; and that, if I am right, you cannot also be
right when you affirm that this same action is wrong. This objective
validity is the very core and centre of the idea of Duty or moral
obligation. That is why it is so important to assert that moral
judgements are the work of Reason, not of a supposed moral sense or any
other kind of feeling. Feelings may vary in different men without any
of them being in the wrong; red really is the same as green to a
colour-blind person. What we mean when we talk about the existence of
Duty is that things are right or wrong, no matter what you or I think
about them--that the laws of Morality {73} are quite as much
independent of my personal likings and dislikings as the physical laws
of Nature. That is what is meant by the 'objectivity' of the moral law.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account