Hence, a man may significantly assert that certain
conduct is objectively desirable, although it may
not be desired by himself or by his community.
He may judge a thing to be wrong without feeling
it to be wrong. Whether anything would actually
be judged to be wrong, if no one ever had any emotions,
is a different question. With it we may class
the question whether anything would be judged to be
wrong if no one were possessed of even a spark of
reason. There is small choice between having nothing
to see and not being able to see anything. [Footnote:
That, in the citation above given, WESTERMARCK’S
attention was concentrated upon the extreme position
taken by some moralists touching the function of the
reason in moral judgments seems to me evident.
He is far too able an observer to overlook the significance
of the diversity of moral codes and the meaning of
progress. He writes: “Though rooted
in the emotional side of our nature, our moral opinions
are in a large measure amenable to reason. Now
in every society the traditional notions as to what
is good or bad, obligatory or indifferent, are commonly
accepted by the majority of people without further
reflection. By tracing them to their source it
will be found that not a few of these notions have
their origin in sentimental likings and antipathies,
to which a scrutinizing and enlightened judge can
attach little importance; whilst, on the other hand,
he must account blamable many an act and omission which
public opinion, out of thoughtlessness, treats with
indifference.” Vol. I, pp. 2-3.
See also his appeals to reason where it is a question
of the attitude of the community toward legal responsibility
on the part of the young, toward drunkenness, and
toward the heedless production of offspring doomed
to misery and disease, pp. 269 and 310.]
An appeal, thus, from the actual to the ideal appears
to be possible. And, since the natural man, unenlightened
and unreflective, is not more inclined to show himself
to be a reasonable being in the sphere of morals than
elsewhere, it seems that there is no little need of
ethical science. Its aim is to bring about the
needed enlightenment. Its value can only be logically
denied by those who maintain seriously that it is easy
to know what it is right to do. Do men really
hold this, if they are thoughtful?
PART III
MAN AND HIS ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER VIII
MAN’S NATURE
21. THE BACKGROUND OF ACTIONS.—In
estimating human actions we take into consideration
both the doer and the circumstances under which the
deed was done. Actions may be desirable or undesirable,
good or bad, according to their setting. How
shall we judge of the blow that takes away human life?
It may be the involuntary reaction of a man startled
by a shock; it may be a motion of justifiable self-defence;
it may be one struck at the command of a superior
and in the defence of one’s country; it may be
the horrid outcome of cruel rapacity or base malevolence.
