Page images
PDF
EPUB

able. But pride, considered as distinct from the desire of esteem, and as essentially a modification of selfishness, is morally evil. Perhaps no state of mind, if we consider our numerous infirmities and wants, is less suited to our situation, or is more fitted to bring upon us the disapprobation and rebukes of our Maker.

§ 133. Reference to the opinions of philosophical writers. It would be easy to introduce passages in support of the greater part of the views of this chapter, if it were deemed necessary, from writers whose opinions are received with deference, and are justly entitled to be so. It appears from the recent Work of Dr. Chalmers on the Moral and Intellectual Constitution of Man, that he regards the desire of possession (the possessory principle, as it may be conveniently designated) as connatural to the human mind. (Vol. i., chap. vi., 8.8-13.) Mr. Stewart takes the same view in regard to the principle of self-love, or the desire of happiness. (Active and Moral Powers, bk. ii., chap. i.) On this important subject, which, in some of its aspects, is closely connected with the requisitions and appeals of revealed religion, we find the following explicit statement in Dr. Wardlaw's recently-published treatise, entitled Christian Ethics.

"SELF-LOVE is an essential principle in the constitution of every intelligent creature, meaning by self-love the desire of its own preservation and well-being. By no effort of imagination can we fancy to ourselves such a creature constituted without this. It is an original law in the nature of every sentient existence. In man, it is true, in regard especially to the sources from which it has sought its gratification, it is a principle which, since his fall, has been miserably perverted and debased, degenerating, in ten thousand instances, into utter selfishness, and in all partaking of this unworthy taint. Between selfishness, however, and legitimate self-love, there is an obvious and wide discrepance. The latter is not at all distinctive of our nature as degenerate, but was inwoven in its very tex

ture, as it came from the Creator's hand. The former is properly the corruption of the latter. It leads the creature who is under its dominant influence to prefer self to fellow-creatures and to God, so as to seek its own real or supposed advantage at the expense of the interests and the honour of both. So far, on the contrary, is self-love from being unwarrantable, that, in that part of God's law which prescribes our feelings. and conduct towards our fellow-creatures, it is assumed as the standard measure of the commanded duty, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as THYSELF.' Take away self-love, or suppose it possible that the human heart should be divested of it, and you annihilate the command by rendering it unintelligible.

"There is not, assuredly, any part of the divine word by which we are required, in any circumstances, to divest ourselves of this essential principle in our constitution. That word, on the contrary, is full of appeals to it, under every diversity of form. Such are all its threatenings, all its promises, all its invitations."

CHAPTER V.

PROPENSITIES CONTINUED.—SOCIALITY, OR THE DESIRE OF SOCIETY.

§ 134. The principle of sociality original in the human mind. In examining the propensive principles, it is a matter of but little consequence, either philosophically or practically, in what order they present themselves for consideration. The principle of sociality, or desire of society, is deferred to the present chapter, and is made the subject of a distinct consideration, not because the order of nature required it, but because its importance seemed to entitle it to a more detailed and extended notice than the principles which have preceded.—The doctrine which we propose to maintain is, that men naturally (not moved to it primarily by the influences of education or considerations of inter

est, but of themselves and naturally) have a desire of the company or society of their fellow-men; a tendency of the mind expressed by the single term socIAL

ITY or SOCIABILITY.

§ 135. The principle of sociality not selfish.

We are aware that the desire of society, as well as some of the other original propensions, has sometimes been regarded as a mere modification of selfism. It is the fact, however, that, in its first operation, the desire of society acts instinctively, being directed to its object as an ultimate end, wholly irrespective of any pleasure which may subsequently be found attached to its attainment. It is one of the characteristics of Desire, as we have already seen, that the attainment of its object is attended with more or less pleasure. And this is as true of the successful issue of the principle of Sociality as of any other principle, involving, as a part of its nature, the desiring element. Accordingly, after the experience of pleasure attendant upon its successful exercise, even in a single instance, it is possible that its subsequent action may be prompted rather by a regard to the concomitant enjoyment than to the object which originally called it forth. Such an exercise of the principle under consideration may, with some appearance of propriety, be termed a selfish one; but this is rather a secondary than an original exercise; and does not so much indicate what the principle is by nature as what it may become by subordinate or by perverting influences. In itself considered, it is innocent and highly useful; it may indeed, after its first exercise, be indulged from a regard to personal or self-interested considerations; that is to say, from a regard to our own happiness or pleasure; but even the exercise of the principle from such considerations is not to be regarded, as some may suppose, as morally wrong, provided it is so regulated as not to conflict with the proper operation of other principles and with the claims of duty.

§ 136. Reference to the doctrine of Hobbes on this subject. We shall enter a little more minutely into the consideration of this principle than of those which have preceded; for this reason, among others, that the doctrine which we propose to maintain has not been universally received. We have reference in this remark to the opinions of those persons who, in concurrence with the doctrines of Mr. Hobbes, the author of the political treatise of the Leviathan and of some philosophical writings, maintain that men do not naturally seek, but rather avoid each other's society, being inspired with sentiments of aversion, and regarding their fellow-men as enemies and not as friends. If the great fact, which meets them at the first step in the inquiry, that men actually live in society, be objected to them, they answer, not by denying the fact, but by saying that this is a matter of necessity; in other words, that men live in society, not because they love it, but because, in all the circumstances of the case, they had rather do this, painful as it is, than suffer other evils still greater. The weak, they say, found themselves in danger of being overrun and destroyed by the more powerful; and, in order to protect themselves, were willing to enter into a companionship and union with their fellow-men, which they would otherwise have gladly avoided. And, in proof of the correctness of their opinions, they refer to those precautions against the injurious attacks of others which are generally considered necessary, such as locks, keys, bars, bolts, prisons, civil officers of justice, and a military force.

§ 137. Remarks on the statements of the preceding section. In order that the subsequent part of the discussion may be less embarrassed, it will be proper to delay a moment in the consideration of these statements. As to the fact that such precautions as have been specified are generally taken, and that there is a reason for them, we do not suppose that it is at all a matter of question. But it will be recollected, if there were

only one unprincipled and violent man in a community of some hundreds or thousands, who felt disposed, in secrecy and darkness, or at any other time, to exert his power to the injury of his neighbours, these precautions would be rendered necessary. The view, therefore, which we may properly take is, that the facts referred to, although they may be admitted to exist, do not necessarily prove the absence of the principle of sociality, considered as a general element of human nature, but merely prove the presence and influence of other principles, which have the effect, in some instances, to restrict and overrule the social element. The general rule, resting, as we shall endeavour to show, on satisfactory evidence, is, that man is a social being, seeking and delighting in the society of his fellow-men; and the facts just referred to merely show, and so far they may be admitted to be conclusive, that the general rule is liable to occasional exceptions.

§ 138. The doctrine of an original principle of sociality supported by the view that it is necessary to man in his actual situation. In proceeding to bring forward some considerations in support of the doctrine that the desire of society is a connatural element of our mental nature, it may be remarked, as introductory to other considerations of a more decisive character, that the various relations which man sustains seem to require it. In other words, his situation is such, being unable, in point of fact, to exist independently of society, as to demand just such a principle as this. If he be destitute of this principle, it may be said, with no small degree of plausibility, that he is not fitted with entire wisdom to those circumstances in which he is actually placed. But this state of things would obviously be at variance with the analogy of nature in other cases, and would seem to imply not only a deficiency of wisdom, but a want of goodness also in the Supreme Being. In other cases He has fitted, with an admirable adjustment, the objects of his creation and care to the situ

« PreviousContinue »