The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and WrongBrentano, Franz
Philosophy
The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong
Brentano, Franz
Ethics
23. We have now reached the place where the notions of good and bad,
along with the notions of the true and the false which we have been
seeking, have their source. We call anything true when the recognition
related to it is right.[25] We call something good when the love
relating to it is right. That which can be loved with a right love, that
which is worthy of love, is good in the widest sense of the term.
24. Since everything which pleases does so, either for its own sake, or
for the sake of something else which is thereby produced, conserved or
rendered probable, we must distinguish between a primary and a secondary
good, i.e. what is good in itself, and what is good on account of
something else, as is specially the case in the sphere of the useful.
What is good in itself is the good in the narrower sense. It alone can
stand side by side with the true. For everything which is true is true
in itself, even when only mediately known. When we speak of good later
we shall therefore mean, whenever the contrary is not expressly
asserted, that which is good in itself.
In this way we have, I hope, made clear the notion of good.[26]
25. There follows now the still more important question: How are we to
know that anything is good? Ought we to say that whatever is loved and
is capable of being loved is worthy of love and is good? This is
manifestly untrue, and it is almost inconceivable that some have fallen
into this error. One loves what another hates, and, in accordance with a
well known psychological law already previously referred to it often
happens that what at first was desired merely as a means to something
else, comes at last from habit to be desired for its own sake. In such a
way the miser is irrationally led to heap up riches and even to
sacrifice himself for their sake. The actual presence of love,
therefore, by no means testifies unconditionally to the worthiness of
the object to be loved, just as affirmation is no unconditional proof of
what is true.
It might even be said that the first statement is even more _evident_
than the second, since it can hardly happen that he who affirms anything
at the same time holds it to be false, whereas it frequently happens
that a person, even while loving something, confesses himself that it is
unworthy of his love:
“Video meliora proboque,
Deteriora sequor.”
How then are we to know that anything is good?
26. The matter appears enigmatical, but the enigma finds a very easy
solution.
As a preliminary step to answering the question, let us turn our glance
from the good to the true.
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