The ethics of Hercules : $b A study of man's body as the sole determinant of ethical valuesGivler, Robert Chenault
Philosophy
The ethics of Hercules : $b A study of man's body as the sole determinant of ethical values
Givler, Robert Chenault
Ethics; Psychophysiology
From our earlier remark that the science of ethics is primarily
concerned with what _is_ rather than what _ought to be_, it may
be difficult to imagine what place the concept of human freedom
can have in a mechanistic treatment of the problems of conduct.
It might seem easier to foreshadow what will be the fate of the
concept of obligation, especially when we realize that oughting is
always hypothetical, rather than categorical. For every obligation
is specific and particular,—it depends upon conditions, places,
times, and persons, just as does every signification of good and
bad, and right and wrong. There is no general Ought, as our recent
discussion of Kant’s categorical imperative clearly implied. When,
then, we ask from whom or from what obligation arises, what answer
does a mechanistic ethics provide? Some may expect us to make the
traditional answer, namely, that it comes from the group, and that
the _feeling_ of obligation is a variation of the elemental type of
conscience. This sort of an answer is not to be given here. Although
the group largely determines how we shall feel with regard to what
_ought_ to be done, yet the final education of an ethically adult
person leaves him with a different mind on this point. Indeed, it
is our purpose here not only to show that the concept of ethical
freedom is a valid concept for a mechanistic ethics, but also and
more particularly that a true conception of ethical obligation
depends upon the discovery of what ethical freedom implies. That this
involves no paradox will be understood as soon as we comprehend what
it means to say that a man is _free_. Herewith we shall state five
conditions under which freedom of action is guaranteed.
The first meaning of free action is _action that is physically
possible_. I am not now, I never was, and I never shall be free (that
is, able) to walk backward and forward at the same time, or to be
in Boston and New York simultaneously. Neither can I, while kissing
Jennie at her fireside, be also kissing Kate at her doorway a mile
from Jennie’s house. On the other hand, the man who is sound of limb,
sensorially acute, and otherwise endowed with natural capacities, can
be said to be free to employ these capacities whenever and wherever
the conditions provide the opportunity.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account