Page images
PDF
EPUB

feelings, that they always imply action, something to be done. And again, they never exist except in those cases where not only action, but effective action, is possible, or is supposed to be so. We never feel under moral obligation to do anything which we are convinced, at the same time, is beyond our power. It is within these limits the feeling arises; and, while we cannot define it, we are able to intimate, though somewhat imperfectly, another characteristic. What we mean will be understood by a reference to the words enforcement, constraint, or compulsion. Every one is conscious that there is something in the nature of feelings of moral obligation approaching to the character of enforcement or compulsion; yet not by any means in the material sense of those terms. There is no enforcement analogous to that which may be applied to the body, and which may be made irresistible.

The apostle Paul says, "The love of Christ constraineth us." What is the meaning of this? Merely that the mercy of Christ, exhibited in the salvation of men, excited such a sentiment of obligation, that they found in themselves a great unwillingness to resist its suggestions, and were determined to go forth proclaiming that mercy, and urging all men to accept it. And it is in reference to this state of things we so frequently assert that we are bound, that we are obliged, or even that we are compelled to pursue a particular course in preference to another course; expressions which, in their original import, intimate the existence of a feeling which is fitted by its very nature strongly to control our volition. But, although these expressions point to this trait of the feeling, they do it but imperfectly and indistinctly, and consciousness alone can give a full understanding of it.

◊ 406. Feelings of obligation differ from those of mere approval and

disapproval.

It is possible that the question may be started why we do not class these feelings with Emotions, particularly those of a moral kind. And recognising the propriety of avoiding an increase of classes where it is not obviously called for, we shall endeavour to say something, in addition to what has already been intimated, in answer to this

manent.

question. We have not classed the mental states under examination with Emotions, in the first place, because they do not appear to be of that transitory nature which seems to be characteristic of all emotions. Ordinarily they do not dart into the soul with the same rapidity, shining up, and then disappearing, like the sudden lightning in the clouds; but, taking their position more slowly and gradually, they remain, like the sun, bright and perIn the course of an hour a person may experience hundreds, and even thousands, of emotions of joy or grief, of beauty or sublimity, and various other kinds. They come and go, return and depart again, in constant succession and with very frequent changes; but it probably will not be pretended that the feelings of duty, which are destined to govern man's conduct, and which constitute his most important principles of action, are of such a rapid, variant, and evanescent nature. A man feels the sentiment of duty now, and it is reasonable to anticipate, unless the facts presented to his mind shall essentially alter, that he will feel the same to-morrow, next week, next month, and next year. He may as well think of altering and alienating the nature of the soul itself, as of eradicating these feelings when they have once taken root, so long as the objects to which they relate remain the same in the mind's view.

407. Feelings of obligation have particular reference to the future.

A second reason for not classing feelings of obligation with emotions, particularly moral ones, is the fact that obligatory sentiments have special reference to the future. Moral emotions are of a peculiar kind; they have a character of their own, which is ascertained by consciousness; but they merely pronounce upon the character of objects and actions that are either past or present; upon the right or wrong of what has actually taken place in time past, or is taking place at the present moment; with the single exception of hypothetical cases, which are brought before the mind for a moral judgment to be passed upon them. But even in these cases, as far as the action of the moral sense is concerned, the objects of contemplation are in effect present. The conscience passes its judgment upon

the objects in themselves considered; and that is all. It goes no further.

But it clearly seems to be different with the feelings under consideration. The states of mind involving obligation and duty have reference to the future; to something which is either to be performed, or the performance of which is to be avoided. They bind us to what is to come. They can have no possible existence, except in connexion with what is to be done, either in the inward feeling or the outward effort. The past is merged in eternity, and no longer furnishes a place for action. Obligation and duty cannot reach it, and it is given over to retribution.

§ 408. Feelings of obligation subsequent in time to the moral emotions of approval and disapproval.

Another and third important circumstance to be taken into view in making out the distinction under our notice, is, that the sentiments or feelings of obligation are always subsequent in point of time to moral emotions, and cannot possibly exist until preceded by them. The statement is susceptible of illustration in this way. Some complicated state of things, involving moral considerations, is presented before us; we inquire and examine into it; emotions of approval or disapproval then arise. And this is all that takes place, if we ourselves have, in no way whatever, any direct and active concern, either present or future. But if it be otherwise, the moral emotions are immediately succeeded by a distinct and imperative feeling; the sentiment of obligation, which binds us, as if it were the voice of God speaking in the soul, to act or not to act, to do or not to do, to favour or to oppose.

How common a thing it is for a person to say that he feels no moral obligation to do a thing, because he does not approve it; or, on the contrary, that, approving any proposed course, he feels under obligation to pursue it; language which undoubtedly means something, and which implies a distinction between the mere moral emotion and the feeling of obligation; and which tends to prove the prevalence of the common belief, that obligation is subsequent to, and dependent on, approval or disapproval.

On looking at the subject in these points of view, we cannot come to the conclusion to rank feelings of obligation with moral emotions, or with any other emotions, but are induced to assign them a distinct place. But it is not surprising, on the whole, that moral emotions are often confounded with them, when we consider the invariable connexion between the two just spoken of, and when also we consider the imperfection of language, which not unfrequently applies the same terms to both classes of mental states.

[ocr errors]

§ 409. Feelings of obligation differ from desires.

For the reasons which have now been stated, feelings of obligation are not classed with Emotions. We are next asked, perhaps, why they are not classed under the general head of Desires. And, in answering this question, we say in the FIRST place, that consciousness clearly points out a difference. It is believed that few matters come within the reach and cognizance of consciousness which can be more readily decided upon than the difference between our desires and our feelings of obligation. We admit that, in the particular of their fixedness or permanency, and also of their relation to the future, the latter closely approach to the characteristics of the former; and yet a little internal examination will detect a distinction between them which is marked and lasting.

(2.) We may not only consult our own consciousness in this matter, but may derive information from a notice of the outward conduct of men. In speaking of men's conduct, we not unfrequently make a distinction; and we attribute it sometimes to the mere influence of their desires or wishes, and at other times to the predominance of a sense of duty, which is only another name for a sentiment or impulse within, which is morally obligatory. But there would evidently be no propriety in this distinction, if desire and feelings of duty were the same thing; and it would certainly be premature and unjust to charge men with universally making such a distinction when there are no grounds for it.

410. Further considerations on this subject.

If there is not a fixed, permanent, and radical distinc

UNIFORMITY OF ACTION IN THE MORAL SENSIBILITIES. 433

tion between desires and feelings of obligation, then there is an utter failure of any basis of morality, either in fact or in theory. It will readily be conceded that morality implies a will, a power of choice and determination. But the mere moral emotions, viz., of approval and disapproval, do not of themselves reach the Will. They operate on the Will through the feelings of obligation; that is to say, they are always succeeded by the latter feelings before men are led to action. All other emotions operate through the Desires. So that the will, in making up its determinations, takes immediate cognizance of only two classes of mental states, viz., Desires and Feelings of obligation. But brute animals, as a general statement, have all the desires that men have; we mean all those modifications of feeling which have been classed under that general head, viz., instincts, appetites, propensities, the various forms of affection, as resentment, love, the parental affection, &c. But still, being evidently destitute of all feelings of obligation, we never speak or think of them as possessing a moral character. We never applaud them for doing their duty, nor punish them for neglecting its performance. Our treatment of them proceeds on altogether different principles. And it would be the same with men if they were wholly destitute of feelings of moral obligation, and had no motives of action but the various forms of desire. They could never, in that case, be considered morally accountable. They would be without reward when they went right, and without rebuke when they went wrong.

CHAPTER IV.

UNIFORMITY OF ACTION IN THE MORAL SENSIBILITIES. 417. Of uniformity in the decisions of the moral nature and the principle on which it is regulated.

THE two classes of feelings which have been considered, viz., moral emotions, by means of which we approve and disapprove of actions, and the subsequent feelings of

« PreviousContinue »