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
It may be surprising to learn that as far as ethical theory is
concerned, the doctrine of an infallible conscience is the product of
no less recent a time than the XVIII century. The Conscience-theory
is the philosophical property of such men as Butler, Clarke, Kant,
Shaftesbury, and Reid, rather than of their predecessors. Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679), who founded critical English ethics, flatly
refused to give to the then immature concept of conscience any
recognition; indeed, he declared it to be nothing less than a
“disease” of the state, and one “of those things that weaken or
tend to the dissolution of a commonwealth.” In Chapter XXIX of the
“Leviathan,” he states the current notions of conscience: (1) “That
every private man is judge of good and evil actions,” and (2) “That
whatsoever a man does against his conscience is sin.” Both of these
notions Hobbes condemns. “For,” he observes with characteristic
sagacity, “a man’s conscience and his judgment is the same thing, and
as the judgment so also the conscience may be erroneous.”
This emphasis which Hobbes placed upon the untrustworthiness of
private ethical judgments was fatal to his purpose. His successors
began straightway to reanimate that which he had sought to bury once
and for all, and, whether on account of their temperamental antipathy
to the intellectualism of Hobbes, or because they were honestly
seeking for some valid ethical principle, they asserted, first
timidly, and later with a surprising boldness the very thing which
Hobbes had sought especially to efface from the docket of ethical
discussion.
We find this reaction beginning in Shaftesbury (1671-1713). Albeit
this author gives a minor place in his ethical theory to the notion
of a “moral sense,” or rational, reflex affection which approves only
socially beneficial actions, yet the positive emphasis which he puts
upon it is nevertheless significant. The affirmation proved to be
contagious, for those who followed Shaftesbury immediately elevated
conscience to a central position in their systems. We refer here to
Butler, Clarke, Kant, and Reid, who are known as intuitionists.
According to Butler (1692-1752), conscience is a “principle of
reflection” and not a mere _feeling_. And this principle of
reflection is for him a natural or inherent property of man’s
mind. It is the principle by which a man “approves or disapproves
his heart, temper, and actions”; it is a faculty which “tends to
restrain men from doing mischief to each other, and leads them to do
good.” Be it noted here that Butler says nothing about the so-called
infallibility of conscience, nor does he argue that it must be the
same for all persons. Moreover, he gives a somewhat analytical
definition of it, and is willing to grant that its function is
utilitarian.
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