The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong — John Shaqi
The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and WrongBrentano, Franz
Philosophy
The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong
Brentano, Franz
Ethics
But this view is entirely erroneous. Such a feeling of compulsion is
certainly a force driving to action, but it is assuredly not a sanction
conferring validity. Besides, the inclination to vice develops according
to the same law of habit, and exercises, as an impulse, the most
unbounded sway. The miser’s passion which leads him, in his desire of
amassing riches, to submit to the heaviest sacrifices and to commit the
most extreme cruelties, certainly constitutes no sanction for his
conduct.
9. Again, motives of hope or fear that a certain manner of behaviour,
as, for example, regard for the general good, will render us agreeable
or disagreeable to other and more powerful beings, these it has often
been sought to regard as a sanction for such conduct.[9] But it is
manifest that the most cringing cowardice, the most servile flattery
might then boast a natural sanction. As a matter of fact virtue shines
out most brightly where neither threats nor entreaties are able to
divert her from the right path.
10. Some speak of an education in which man, as belonging to an order of
living beings accustomed to live in society, receives from those by whom
he is surrounded. An injunction is repeatedly laid upon him, the
command: “You ought.” It lies in the nature of things that certain
actions are very frequently and generally required of him. There is thus
formed an association between his mode of action and the thought: “You
ought.” And so it may happen that he may come to regard, as the source
of this command, the society in which he lives, or even something
vaguely conceived to be higher than an individual, that is to say,
something regarded in a way as superhuman. The “ought” associated by him
with such a being would then constitute the sanction of conscience.[10]
In this case the natural sanction would then consist in the naturally
developed belief in the command of a more powerful will.
But it is manifest that such a belief in the command of a more powerful
being contains, as yet, nothing which deserves the name of a sanction.
Such a conviction is shared by one who knows himself to be at the mercy
of a tyrant or of a robber horde. Whether he obey, or bid defiance, the
command itself contains nothing able to give to the required act a
sanction similar to that of the conscience. Even if he obey he does so
through fear, not because he regards the command as one based on right.
The thought, therefore, that an act is commanded by some one does not
constitute a natural sanction. In the case of every command issued by an
external will the question arises: Is such a command authorized or is
it not? Neither is there any reference here to a command enforced by a
still higher power enjoining obedience to the former. For then the
question would again reappear, and we should proceed from one command to
another enjoining obedience to the former, and from that to a third
enjoining in like manner obedience to the second, and so on _ad infin_.
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