Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

it is that Justice, or that Truth means, and how the meaning is applicable in the particular case. That in this manner a detailed scheme of human duties, and a solution of ordinary moral questions may be obtained, is, we conceive, shown in the Elements of Morality which have been published with this view.

Although we begin the arrangement of our Morality by taking account of the kinds of Rights established among men by actual Law, this, as we have already said, does not prevent our passing judgment upon existing Laws as moral or immoral, just or unjust. But though some existing Laws may be unjust, we must in our System of Morals, and in all systems of morals which can be recognized by human society, look upon existing Laws in general with great respect, as highly important elements in all moral questions. In general, what is Property, what is a Contract, what is a Marriage, in any Society, must be determined by the Laws of that Society; and as our Duties, as well as our legal Obligations, are concerned about Property, Contract, Marriage, and the like, our Morality must involve a regard to existing Laws. The existing Laws of each state belong to its history;have grown out of its history or with its history, and change with its historical changes. Hence our Morality, besides involving the ideal elements of which we have spoken, the ideas of Justice, Truth, and the like, must include an historical element, belonging to each separate community. Along with the Idea of Morality we must include the Fact of Law. And the bearings of Law and Morality, the dependence of what ought to be on what is,—the conversion of what is into what ought to be in each community,-forms a large and important province of speculation which we can by no means leave out of our consideration. To this province belong all general questions of Political Morality; questions concerning the Rights and Duties of Governments as well as of individuals.

We may add, as also coming within the sphere of our reasonings, questions of Justice concerning property, contracts, and the like, as determined by supposing the most general forms of actual Law, which province we may term General Jurisprudence.

C

The radical part of the term Jurisprudence, namely Jus, (the special study of Jurists) denotes a branch of speculation which may be distinguished from Morality proper by saying that Jus is the doctrine of Rights and Obligations, Morality the doctrine..of Virtues and Duties; the term Obligations being here used in the strict sense above spoken of.

Besides these, we conceive it proper to include in our Morality questions as to what is just and right in the dealings of nations with one another. This is commonly termed International Law; but since there is no supreme authority among nations by which Laws affecting them can be enforced, these questions can only be discussed by assuming a common understanding respecting the Rights and Obligations of nations; and hence the subject may rather be termed International Jus.

The subject of Religion is intimately connected with Morality; or indeed Religion may rather be said to include the subject of Morality, regarding it according to her own special view of man's nature, condition, and prospects. But there result important advantages from treating separately Morality according to Reason, and Morality according to Religion and this therefore we do..

:

The explanation which has thus been given of the relation of our System of Morality to the Systems published by other writers, will have shown in a great degree the objections to the schemes of our predecessors, which prevent our resting satisfied with their labours. With regard to Paley's Principles of Moral Philosophy in particular, the book which is recognized by the University of Cambridge as

an especial subject of ethical study, I have repeatedly pointed out what appear to me to be defects and errors*. But I have thought that it might be convenient to my readers to find here some remarks on a writer who has erected his system of Morality and Jurisprudence on the same basis as Paley, but with more of systematic method and logical consistency I mean Jeremy Bentham. I have therefore given some account of his principal works on these subjects, and have ventured to point out what appear to me their grave defects in principle, reasoning, method, and spirit. With regard to the objections to the principles, they are, of course, much the same as the objections to Paley's fundamental doctrines, modified according to Mr Bentham's mode of stating them. As a specimen of Mr Bentham's method, I have taken his Classification of Offenses, as it appears in his Principles of Morals and Legislation. I have attempted to show that this Classification is very defective, mainly in consequence of his introducing the Head of Offenses against Condition, and not taking as one of his Heads, Contract, a province of the subject so abundant in rules and subdivisions among the best preceding Jurists. It appears to me to result from this examination that the division of Rights into five kinds, Rights of the Person, of Property, of Contract, of Marriage, and Political Rights, with corresponding Offenses or Wrongs, arising from the violation of these Rights, is both more philosophical and more practical. I have also ventured to point out in a particular case (as an example) the impossibility of making a scheme of Law without recognizing in Law a moral purpose.

* See the Preface to Butler's Three Sermons; also the Elements of Morality, Art. 454, &c.

This Note is referred to as an Appendix in a Note to p. 1. It contains the first part of the Lecture delivered on entering on my first Course, April 22, 1839.

I Now appear before the University for the first time in the attempt to discharge my public functions as Professor of Casuistry, or Moral Philosophy; to which chair I was elected in June last, 1838. The office of Professor, in this as in other Universities, is generally understood to imply the duty of delivering Public Lectures upon the subject which the Professorship designates; and in the case of the Professorship which I have the honour to hold, this duty is expressly enjoined by the Founder, and directions are given in the deed of Foundation with a view of securing its effectual performance. As, however, notwithstanding these reasons for the delivery of Public Lectures by the holder of this Professorship, circumstances had in fact led to a discontinuance of them, I did not find myself by this appointment placed in a situation in which I had to continue and carry on an existing system of teaching, on the subject thus committed to my care. I am well aware that it may easily happen to a Professor, from the nature of his subject, or from other circumstances, that he may better hope to promote the study of his science, and the interests of the academic body to which he belongs, in other ways,-by his advice, his writings, or his judgments on what is done by others,-than by the delivery of Lectures to the general body. With particular subjects, and under particular circumstances, this may very readily be conceived to be so: but in almost all cases it would seem to be desirable, that a person who has conferred upon him such a distinction as is among us implied in a Professorship of any branch of science or learning, should come forwards in some manner which may show to the University that he has made, or is making, a study of that which he professes;—that his attention is employed in examining its principles and tracing its progress;-that he is at his post, prepared with his proper share of the learning and knowledge of past times; and ready, when any new doctrines claim his attention, to resist error, and to welcome truth. It is by possessing a body of persons who hold their respective places in our Universities in such a spirit, whether they bear the name of Professor or Tutor, or any other, that these bodies will be, as such bodies ought to be, the depositaries and diffusers of sound learning-the asylums of solid and substantial truth-the golden links which connect The Permanent with The Progressive. When therefore I was elected into this office, I thought that it became incumbent upon me to show, in some public manner, that I was giving my best attention to the subject with which I was thus charged. And among other steps to which I felt myself thus directed, it appeared to me that a course of Public Lectures, such as the foundation of the Professorship enjoins, might be both of use and of interest to a portion of the University. Such a course, therefore, although in the present year, for reasons which I may hereafter refer to, a brief and very incomplete one, I now purpose to commence.

The subject which I consider as committed to my charge by my professorship is Moral Philosophy, according to that view of the position and limits of the science to which the best modern authors have been led. Even if by taking this subject so defined and bounded, it should appear

that it does not employ itself upon precisely the same class of question which the Founder had in his view when he endowed the office, I shoul. still not fear that the University would look upon such a modification c the Professor's task as not only allowable, but, under proper conditions. laudable. For, in order to teach or to speculate with advantage, w must recognize those relations of the different sciences-those unions and those separations of the various fields of knowledge-those cardinal questions and fundamental alternatives, to which the best researches of later as well as earlier times have led. And if, a century and a half ago, the traditionary partition of the various branches of religion and morals was unphilosophical and confused; or if the questions then considered most important, have now become frivolous or superfluous; it would be unwise for us to allow ourselves to be bound down to technicalities and errors, prevalent in those days, but now detected or obsolete. Such conduct would be a perverse obedience to the letter of our benefactor's instructions, which might almost look like irony; since by such obedience we should certainly and knowingly thwart his real intention. It will be a far more cordial and generous interpretation of his injunctions, and of the purpose of the University in accepting his bequest, if we direct our attention to the branch of knowledge which now stands in the place of that which he recommended; which preserves all that was most valuable in the older body of learning, while it brings before us questions and principles such as are now, at this day, of the deepest interest, and of the most grave concern to the prospects and convictions of men. I may add, that such a substitution of a newer form of a science, full of life, hope, interest, and solid truth, for the older and more imperfect speculations upon related subjects, is what you, the University, have accepted with satisfaction and applause from many, or I may say from all, of the rest of your professors.

I shall therefore reckon upon the implied sanction of this University, in considering myself as Professor of Moral Philosophy; a branch of study of which a professorship exists, I believe, in every university but our own: a branch of study, too, as I trust to be able to show, which cannot be excluded without leaving the general body of knowledge, such as we should here present it to our students, in an intolerable degree maimed and imperfect.

You are probably aware that the person holding this professorship is designated in the Foundation Deed, as Professor of Moral Theology or Casuistical Divinity; and has usually been termed Professor of Casuistry. Although, for the reasons I have just stated, I altogether disclaim the notion that my professorial province is to be defined or limited by an antiquarian investigation as to what Casuistry was at first, or at any period; and although, as I have said, another phrase appears to me to be at present far more fitted to express my office, it may interest you, in parting with this subject as an acknowledged science among us, to cast back a glance, very briefly, upon its nature and course.

I need not remind any one here that the term indicates that portion of Christian Morals which treats of Cases of Conscience; and that Cases of Conscience are questions of human conduct in which conflicting duties,

« ElőzőTovább »