We have, it is true, discovered goodness to be a phase of a process
called "interest," which is qualified further, through the use of a
personal pronoun. The nature of goodness, in other words, is such as
to involve certain specific _relations_, here involving a person or
subject. Goodness is not peculiar in this respect; for there are very
few things in this world that do not involve specific relations. This
is the case, for example, with planets, levers, and brothers. There is
no planet without its sun, no lever without its fulcrum, no brother who
is not somebody's brother.
{46}
But the relationship in the case of goodness is supposed to be a more
serious matter; sufficiently serious to discredit the meaning of
goodness, or make all judgments concerning goodness merely expressions
of bias. The supposition is due to the confusion of a relativity in
the _subject-matter_ of the judgment, with a relativity of the judgment
itself to the individual that gives utterance to it. Thus the
judgment, "You like apples," deals with your interest and the objects
relating to it; but the judgment itself is not therefore biassed. It
is no more an expression of your opinion than it is of mine; it is a
formulation of what occurs in the field of experience open to all
observers. A judgment _concerning_ only you, is utterly different from
a judgment _representing_ only you. The latter, if there were such a
thing, would be ungrounded, and would justify the sceptic's suspicions.
The confusion is possible here simply because the subject-matter of the
judgment in question is itself a judgment. It could scarcely arise in
the parallel cases. The lever cannot be defined except in relation to
its fulcrum. This may be loosely generalized and made to read:
judgments concerning a lever are relative to a fulcrum. It might even
be said that a lever is a lever only from the point of view of its own
fulcrum. But the most unscrupulous quibbler would scarcely offer this
as evidence against {47} the objective validity of our knowledge of
levers. Your brother is necessarily related to you; but the
proposition defining the relationship is not on that account relative,
that is, peculiarly yours or any one else's. Fraternity is a complex
involving a personal connection, but is none the less entirely
objective. And precisely the same thing is true of goodness. To
observe it adequately one must bring into view that complex object
called an interest, which may be yours or his or mine; but it will be
brought none the less into our common view, and observed as any other
object may be observed. Because goodness is inherent in a process
involving instincts, desires, or persons, it is not one whit less valid
or objective than it would be if it involved the sun or the first law
of motion.
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