LECTURE XII.

GISBORNE-PEARSON-PRICE-ROBERT HALL.

ESIDES the argument against the doctrine of expediency, derived from the impossibility of applying it, Mr Gisborne stated other objections to Paley's ethical system. He urged that since actions are asserted to be blameable only so far as their consequences are injurious, and since, of the probable consequences, each man is for himself the judge; it follows that, if a man be persuaded that any action, of those which are by the world called crimes, would produce an overweight of good over bad consequences, it ceases to be in him a crime, and becomes a duty and thus rapine, hypocrisy, perjury, murder, may be entitled to the highest rewards of virtue.

With regard to this argument, it goes to prove the untenable character of Paley's pretended analysis of moral obligation, and has already been considered in substance when I spoke of that subject. I may observe, however, that in stating this argument, Mr Gisborne has anticipated the answer sometimes made to it ;-that all moral rules must be applied in virtue of the conviction of the agent, and by means of his judgment; and that therefore the difficulty arising from this circumstance, whatever it amount to, is no argument against Paley's principles more than against other system of morals. Mr Gisborne replies, that the system of

general utility is not upon an equal footing with other systems in this respect. The teachers of positive independent morality obtain general definite rules; as, not to take what belongs to another-to perform what we promise—and the

like. There is no confusion or vagueness in applying such rules. Utility, on the contrary, leads us to no absolute rules; for she has never exhausted the stock of possible consequences. She confirms such precepts as the above; but still, confirms them as liable to exception, and valid only upon the supposition that nothing unforeseen alters the usual result. I think that we cannot deny that the consideration of general consequences, thus directly employed to establish moral precepts, does, by its nature, leave them charged with a large amount of insecurity and vagueness; and indeed makes them in a great degree precarious. All peremptory and rigorous moral rules become, on this system, as I have already said, rather assumptions made to suit the needs of practical morality, than fair deductions from the principle, supported by just and adequate demonstrations.

Mr Gisborne further urged, that Paley's rule is irreconcileable with the Scriptures, which enjoin us not to do evil that good may come: and he condemned, with a very natural severity, a passage to which I have already referred, in which Paley dilutes and almost nullifies this serious command, by terming it a caution, salutary for the most part, the advantage seldom compensating for the violation of the rule.

Mr Gisborne was not the only assailant of the Paleian system on its introduction into this University. Dr Pearson, afterwards the Master of Sidney College, also published two pamphlets (in 1800 and 1801), one directed against the theoretical, and the other against the practical part of Paley's ethical work. Some of Dr Pearson's principal objections were aimed at some of the defects of the work in system and reasoning, which its most ardent admirers could hardly deny; as in the case of the confusion (already noticed) which is to be found in Paley's definition of virtue. Dr Pearson's own definition of Virtue is, Voluntary obedience to the will of God. But he contends that the will of God may be ascertained in

various ways; by the eternal fitness of things, conformity to truth, the moral sense, and, if really applicable, general utility: any of these principles may, he asserts, be employed in discovering the path of our duties. As a practical rule, this commixture of views fundamentally different, may be admitted; but it may be observed that we should never in this way obtain a sound theory, or a coherent system of ethics. It may be, that each of these principles is true, and that each has its place in a true system: but then, that place must be definite, and must be assigned by the most profound and comprehensive philosophy which belongs to the subject. Such philosophy can never countenance a tumultuary assemblage of all the principles which have ever been propounded, brought together on the supposition that they have all equal and independent rights.

In 1797 a defence of Paley's Moral Philosophy against its assailants was attempted by Dr Croft, of Birmingham, formerly of University College, Oxford. But this work was not of a nature to throw much new light upon the subject: and at that period Paley's book was too firmly established as a standard work on morals to need such a defender. It had become a constant and prominent part of the teaching and the examinations carried on in this University, and both by the hold it thus obtained upon the minds of many young men of good ability and good condition, by its own merits of style and execution, and by its congruity with the principles and feelings of a large portion of English society, its views and reasonings had pervaded the whole mass of English thought. Every attempt at general abstract reasoning on moral subjects was made after the manner of the reasonings in Paley's works, and generally, upon the same fundamental principles; and thus, besides the direct operation of the work, there was an indirect influence exerted which, in time, tinged the habits of thinking, reasoning and expression in

this country, to at least as great an extent as any previous moral doctrine had ever done.

Besides those who thus objected to Paley's doctrine, and those who defended it, there was another class who gladly accepted the principle of morality founded upon consequences, and of right and wrong regulated by the bearing of actions upon general utility: and who accepted it only to carry it very much farther than Paley or any of his predecessors had done, and to strip it of all the cautions and limitations by which he had endeavoured to render it salutary.

This body of speculators did not immediately show itself upon the appearance of Paley's book, nor even directly after its general reception and establishment here. But when, by being constantly employed in this University as the basis of our moral teaching, the principles of which I speak had become firmly fixed in men's minds, and recognized by a great part of the nation as the true grounds of human conduct and judgment, it was natural that persons with very different views from Paley should try whether their system might not be built on his foundations. His system embodied in itself the Christian belief, recommended the usually-acknowledged virtues, and was, for the most part, opposed to changes in the state of society and government. But persons who wished for a system without such ingredients, found that they could easily employ the doctrine of general utility so as to obtain their own most cherished conclusions. For this end, they held that the principle of the greatest happiness required to be followed out more rigidly, more resolutely, more purely, than Paley had done it and there were not wanting persons who performed this task with joy and exultation, and then very naturally called upon their countrymen, and especially those of Paley's school, to admire what they had done, and to give it its practical effect.

I am not now going to discuss any further the specula

N

tions to which I thus refer: for they belong to our own time, and are hardly yet a subject for mere history. I will only observe that, whatever any one may think obnoxious or dangerous in the conclusions to which such speculations have led, is by no means to be cast as a matter of blame upon Paley. Even if such conclusions were deducible in the most logical and demonstrative manner from principles which Paley lays down, still, as he himself does not acknowledge, but on the contrary, disclaims and condemns such opinions as those to which I refer, he is not chargeable with them; for it has been generally allowed that man, whose duties are practical, not theoretical, is not to be made responsible for consequences which he does not intend or foresee, even if they follow inevitably from what he does or says. He is not morally bound always to reason in a perfect manner. He is bound to reason as well as he can, but not bound to reason better. He must use his best endeavour to apply such faculties as God has given him to the discovery of the truth; and if, doing this, he fails, his error is not necessarily his sin. If, therefore, Paley did not see the necessity of the offensive consequences which have been deduced from his doctrine, or seeing them, conceived they might be averted by the considerations which he offered, he is not to bear the whole blame of the opinions which others have thus promulgated. He may be a bad philosopher, an unsound theorist; but he may still continue a blameless writer, a virtuous man. And if this be so, even assuming Paley's principles to be identical with those which lead to dangerous and immoral tenets, how much less is he answerable for the conclusions of those who copy his mode of speculation, but who leave out of their system that which is the main and guiding element in his, the rewards and punishments of another life! The study of Paley's Moral Philosophy in this place may have produced evil, which may perhaps now have accumulated so as to over