Ideals and institutions their parallel development ...

Preface

The following pages contain a presentation of some historical bearings of the theory of the moral ideal. One of their results is to bring to that theory the weight of an historical confirmation.

Part I is intended as the metaphysical basis for and introduction to the historical study which occupies Part II.

The paragraph entitled Causality, at the close of each section in Part II, is intended simply to point out the causality of the ideal in the development of the institution in hand. While this is a matter of no little interest and importance, its exhibition is not the main object of the thesis' argument, whence the skeleton-like form of statement, and the smaller type.

Obviously, the most difficult problem has been the ascertainment of the ideal. In the later ages, and in some of the earlier, there is literary material of the times from which we get a tolerably clear idea. But in other cases, the method is, of necessity, one of insight. The ideal inferred from a single institution, finding verification as the ideal of an age, when applied as such to that age's other institutions, has thus an historical presumption established in its favor. And if it coordinates in an historical development with the ideals of other ages, obtained by a similar method, or more especially with those revealed in literature of the times, the ideal may be regarded as substantially correct.

In reading Part II, it will be of value to keep in mind the development of any single institution as a whole. Otherwise the presentation of its early stages, as its original, and for us basal form, its point of departure, will seem little else than a

6 PREFA CE

rehearsal of facts of common knowledge. It will be helpful, also, to have well fixed in mind the course of development of the ideal as one follows the development of the corresponding institutions. In both these matters, the paragraphs entitled Causality and the charts at the end of each chapter may render assistance.

Appended is a list of the authorities which have been consulted, in part or in whole, in the preparation of the thesis. Especial indebtedness should be acknowledged to the last chapter of Schurman's " Ethical Import of Darwinism " for its suggestiveness in the early consideration of the general subject, to Green's " Prolegomena to Ethics," to Andrews' " Institutes of General History," and to Wilson's "The State"; also to various persons who have given helpful criticism, and to Professor Williston S. Hough, in charge of the Department of

Philosophy.

JOHN ERNEST MERRILL

November 23, 18Q4

Chapter II : Institutions 25-30

Definitions

Sanctions and Causes of Institutions Change in Institutions Classification of Institutions

Chapter HI : Static Relation of Ideals and Institutions. Correspondence

Their

31-35

Introductory

Institutions from the point of view of the Ideal The Ideal from the point of view of Institutions Institutions and the Ideal constitute one whole Objections considered

Chapter IV : Parallel Development of Teutonic Ideals and Institutions 133-172 Preliminary

Development of the Ideal

Parallel Development of Institutions relating to Subjugation of

Nature, Social Organization, and Individual Culture Chart

Conclusion 173

List of Authorities 174-175

THESIS

HISTORY SHOWS A PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND THE MORAL IDEAL.

IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE IDEAL HAS BEEN PRIOR TO AND CAUSALLY CONNECTED WITH ITS CORRESPONDING INSTI- TUTIONS.

"The great motors of the race are moral, not intellectual"

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

Part I

METAPHYSICAL

Chapter I THE IDEAL

In the solution of any problem, or the development of any truth, there are always certain considerations which, while not themselves directly the matter of investigation, are so vitally connected with the subject in hand that their early study becomes a necessity. Thus, doubtless the meaning of the terms "ideal" and "institution" is popularly understood, in a general way, and perhaps not a few are aware of their peculiar ethical signification. Yet it will not be unwise for us to analyze them each quite carefully, in order that we may be sure of their exact connotation.

Any true system of morality or of ethical teaching must ultimately rest, of course, upon facts which are common to human nature. And more than introductory —

... . r . . . Basis of Moral

this, it must be founded upon characteristics Theory

which belong to all men as such ; it must find its abiding basis in the inherent character of humanity. What this foundation is, a short process of elimination will discover.

All men have physical bodies and exercise the functions of life. Their every activity is a manifestation that they are physically alive. But in this they do not differ essentially from the animals. In fact, the difference is not so much one of function as of structure, and in both structure and function animals are more widely separated from each other than some of them are from man.

Again, in the higher field of intellect, all men have minds and perform certain mental operations which are proof of their powers of reasoning. Yet here, two difficulties present themselves. In the first place, animals seem in a measure to join in this (when, however, it comes to abstract reasoning, we do not find them able to accompany us), and in the second, the highest and lowest degrees of mental ability in man are so far apart that a single intellectual criterion cannot be the basis of an universal morality. Wherever the standard may be placed, it is too high for some and too low for others. It cannot meet the conditions of including only persons and yet fully including all persons. What we find true of cognition and mental processes as such is true also of feeling. On the one hand, animals share with us the capacity for emotion, though we cannot posit for them what we know as the higher spiritual joys, and on the other, in matters of feeling, men are not on an equality with one another. For we know how some have warm and passionate natures, and others are very phlegmatic. Thus, although all men, and that to the exclusion of animals, can grasp abstract ideas, and though they can experience the higher feelings of happiness and joy, neither mind nor feeling per se is fitted to serve as a basis for morality.

And what of the will ? Here again, at first sight, the animals seem to be sharers with man, and in many instances to choose to do certain things — at any rate, they differentiate between objects which are set before them, and take one in preference to the other. However, animal and human choices are not identical. This is no place, nor is there time or need for a discussion of animal consciousness and instinct or of the doctrine of Free-Will. Suffice it for our present purpose to say — what will readily be received — that human choices are distinguished by the fact that they are related to objects which are desired by the subject, whose attainment by himself he wills, objects which he conceives himself as attaining. The animal takes things as they are presented to him ; man, however, as he acts has in view an end, the attainment by himself of some object. And it is upon the existence of such a conception in man, upon the fact of human self-consciousness, that human volition rests. Nor is there a differentiation here between man and man ; all are on an equality. Every individual must and does make choices continually, and each choice is such without reference either to the loftiness of knowledge or to the variableness of feeling — although the three together are necessary to constitute the whole of an act of will. Thus while a capacity of no animal, self-consciousness is yet characteristic of every man. As the only capacity peculiar to him and yet universally active in him, it must be the ultimate foundation of any theory of moral action.

THE IDEAL jc;

Settling thus on self-consciousness as the necessary basis of moral theory, we next inquire what is the end of conduct, for that is the fundamental End of conduct question of all ethical study. Many men have attempted various answers. Some have been optimistic, some pessimistic ; some based on theology, some on the results of physical science ; some have been dogmatic and some skeptical, and a very few have been critical. But there in one solution which is competent to cover every particular case. That a man always acts to satisfy some desire will be generally admitted ; he never chooses to do that to which he is not prompted by some longing. The end, the good, may therefore be generically defined as the satisfaction of desire.

But in the whole of every man's life there is one predominant end ; his entire energy is concentrated upon the production of some single result. He has one primary object of desire to which all appetites and desires of the moment are compelled to become subordinate. What is it ? It is, to be sure, the satisfaction of desire, but what does this formal answer signify ? In short, to put the central question, does a man will the possession of things or the performance of deeds ? Obviously the latter, for no object can give satisfaction. A man is satisfied, not when he has what he has been seeking, for by common experience he then desires something more, but when he is obtaining the object of his desire. It is not the thing itself, but its attainment, the necessary life and conduct, that can satisfy. Not the having of objects, but their attainment is the end. And so it is that man wills the realization of a self conceived by him as doing certain things ; he wills the fulfillment of an ideal of himself. At this he aims. In its general direction, according to the Socratic teaching, he does all his moral walking. And with the fulfilment of this ideal there goes hand in hand the progressive satisfaction of his desire.

In a general way this sets forth the nature of the moral ideal ; but we seek a more particular definition. T. H. Green is the chief representative of the Definitions of the

,1 , .. . . , . , , , , Ideal — Definition

theory, and it is to him that we therefore turn. from Green From his " Prolegomena to Ethics " we get the statement, "The moral ideal is an active idea of common good." ' The definition will bear considerable expansion.

1 These are not Green's words, but rather a crystallization of what he writes, Prolegomena, p. 219.

l6 IDEALS AND INSTITUTIONS

1. The ideal is first an idea. This accords with the supremacy of reason in man. Yet we should bear it prominently in mind that, as we have already noted, the reason is only a part of human nature. Green exhibits in turn the relations of intellect and desire, desire and will, and intellect and will, and then lays great emphasis on the fact that such a distinction is only logical. 1 In the individual, all the faculties are massed together, acting and reacting upon each other. So the ideal is primarily an idea, but this does not fully describe it. Desire and will each have their part, and the ideal bears peculiar marks which distinguish it from the simple idea.

2. For it is next an idea of the good, of that which satisfies desire. This satisfaction of desire is, as we have seen, the unvarying characteristic of the good. However, it aside, the objects of desire seem as many as men themselves. Yet we may distinguish by the professed objects of their desire two classes of people, those who in their thought identify the good and good things, and those who identify the good with good character. The fallacy of the quest of good things has been already hinted at, but in ordinary life this is not so apparent as might perhaps be expected. No doubt there are many who are led astray by the former of these two ideas, by the glitter of the things which appear; and they plunge into various undertakings which, by common report, will " bring a return." But as satisfying desire, it is impossible that the good should be a thing, a stationary end at which one may aim. The ideal and its manifestation must be of a similar character. The form of the manifestation and of the ideal must be of one kind. As the ideal of the sculptor, from the nature of his work, must be a physical shape — though expressing certain other things — so the ideal of the moral agent, like its manifestation, must be a life. The true identity is of the good and good character, or, in its manifestation, the good life.

3. The ideal, which is an idea of good, is an idea of common good. And it must be this. For man is by nature a social animal, and the formulation of the end must be in terms of his nature. The theory which rests on his personality as self-conscious cannot reject that personality as also social.

1 Green : Ibid., Book II, Chap. 2.

THE IDEAL 1 7

One brushes against his fellows every day. His continued existence is dependent more or less upon their effort. Their lives are inextricably interwoven with his. And if he should seriously attempt to plan his life so as to leave them completely out of account, not only would he find it impossible, but his own activity would be greatly hampered by any movement in that direction. The fact remains that men are in social relations, that " no man liveth unto himself " ; and the ideal must, therefore, be an ideal of common good.

4. The ideal is, further, an active idea of common good. Owing to this is its peculiar function as the guide of conduct. Ideas of common good are as thick as leaves in Vallambrosa. There a^e, for instance, our " castles in the air " and our plans that we never even begin to realize ; there are the Utopias of the poets and the social philosophers, and the — to many — visionary schemes of the communists and^socialists. But for each man, there is one idea of the good — he may call it his " permanent purpose" or his "predominant end" — which we can designate as active. This is the idea by which he regulates his action, and to which, as nearly as possible, he makes his conduct correspond, the idea which is at once the cause and the goal of his activity, to whose fulfillment he bends all his energy. It is his ideal.

The moral ideal is, thus, an idea of the good, an idea of common good, and an active idea of common good.

Some further characteristics of the ideal are brought to light by another definition which seems to us to contain some truth : The moral ideal is the A second

incarnation in idea of those principles of action Definition

which are considered morally ideal. It is true that the good is, in the ultimate analysis, the ground of morality. But principles of action, based to be sure on the nature of the good, are commonly in men's minds in deciding specific cases. And it is from this point of view, viz. : of principles of action, that they attempt to formulate their ideal. 1

1. It is worth while to notice in the first place that, when they do this, they possess at once the necessary thought of the ideal as enjoining activity, of which we have just been speaking in connection with the previous definition. For moral rules

1 Muirhead sets forth a similar theory. Elements of Ethics, page 64, paragraph 27.

j8 ideals and institutions

and principles have no other purpose than the guidance of conduct. They exist on the supposition that a man will do something, and their business is to direct him how to act, both at all times and in particular cases. So it is that the ideal commands action according to those principles of action which are considered morally ideal.

2. The definition of the ideal as an incarnation in idea answers also to the form of our common recognition of moral command and moral inspiration. Their source, we readily perceive, is an ideal of myself as doing certain things. I have before my mind a sort of incarnation of the principles of morality. This is my ideal man and I try to be like him. 1 It may be that, philosophically speaking, such imitation is rather a low sort of action. Most probably the feeling against it arises from our common observation of people who copy appearances, while lacking the reality which these should express. But the objection is here not a vital one, as we shall presently see.

3. Beyond what has been said, we further remark {a) that our definition thoroughly agrees with the organic unity of the moral life, and (b) that it emphasizes the fact that morality is first individual. In regard to the former, the moral life does not follow one rule here and another there ; but, all through, it is one on the basis of a mutually agreeing set of principles. In harmony with this is the thought of the ideal as an incarnation. With respect to the latter, society is a whole, but it exists through individual action ; and the ideal commands, not activity on the part of society, but social action on the part of individuals. To this, likewise, the idea of incarnation adds emphasis, for by no possibility could such a formulation be of society, or include in itself more than a single person.

There are certain considerations, more or less weighty, which may be urged against this definition.

In the first place, the thought of a picture objections to this or form of any kind, the incarnation of certain Definition principles, is rather materialistic. The error of

thinking that this is the case arises, of course, from the use of the word " incarnation " ; but if it be noted that it is an " incarnation in idea," the difficulty will be ob-

1 Similarly Green, ibid., p. 205. " By a moral ideal we mean some type of man or character or personal activity considered as an end in itself."

THE IDEAL viated. To be sure, incarnation means, literally, embodiment ; but it does not necessarily refer to some particular shape and form. Instead, it directs attention to those general features of nature rather than physique which characterize humanity. It calls on us to think of various characteristics under the general notion of man. And we need to put alongside our objection to this form of statement, the fact that many rules of high morality fail to affect men's lives, because of their abstraction and unreality. Men say they cannot conceive themselves, or any real man, as acting in accord with them.

Again, some one may suggest that we are making the ideal an imagination. Right — though not in the way the criticism is intended. The reason why we are accustomed to decry imaginations and to call them vain is that they are commonly thought of as not founded upon, or as contrary to, fact and principle. In some way, we have come to confine the word exclusively to this signification, but without sufficient reason. Though based on facts and principles, creations of the mind are still imaginations. So this ideal is an imaging of myself as acting according to principles of action, those principles which are considered morally ideal — but it is not a vain imagination.

A more serious objection is that to which we have already alluded, that this definition would make the moral life one of imitation, with the implication that it would lack self-determination. But by education we are all mimics. We do from our early days what we see others do ; in fact, we are taught to be like them. In process of time, however, one notices in the growing boy or girl the development of individuality. His selfhood appears, both in what he says and in what he does. Are we to say that the fundamental characteristic of conduct has changed, or that there has been a change in the pattern ? It would seem the latter. Personality cannot have come in as a new factor. What we notice is its development, and this means that self-consciousness has been present in the imitation of earlier examples, as well as of later ones ; only in the latter, it is present in greater power. The crude ideal of the child is almost entirely external ; it is the father or the mother, or some other older person. As he grows up, it assumes a more inward form. He adds to it certain factors which are not present in the father or the mother. He copies from his playmates, he acquires new ideas of life from what he reads or hears read ; and so the pattern of his life becomes a more and more heterogeneous combination, involving elements from all his surroundings. This complex example, so far as he considers it as such, is his ideal of action. When he begins to reason about conduct, the ideal is compelled to assume a more consistent form. Yet, in any case, it is the sort of a man he would be. In two extreme instances we find the manifestation of this. The little boy wants to be a man just like his father. The Christian man makes confession of his aim to be like Jesus Christ. And all men in ordinary business, and in scholarly pursuits, know those who are to a large extent the living incarnations of their ideal, and whom they endeavor to imitate.

We may note, too, that this definition is in most close accord with the language of the religious life. We instinctively recall such phrases as, "And be ye imitators of God." The subject of Thomas a Kempis' book also suggests itself, "The Imitation of Christ." And beyond these, we remember that the ideal of moral perfection which Christianity presents is the center of its peculiar power as an ethical system.

Another objection may be that this definition would make the ideal definite and clearly understood, while, as a matter of fact, we know only its general direction. Certain of the roadway to the country which we seek, we are yet in truth unable clearly and fully to describe it. But as the incarnation of principles, its definiteness is exactly equal to our moral insight. The clearness of the outline of the ideal, and the distinctness of our division between right and wrong is exactly correspondent to our knowledge. The ideal is definite just in proportion as it leads one to unite himself with specific desires, as means to its fulfillment.

Since the basis of the moral ideal is man's peculiar nature as a self-conscious being, it follows that every

General Objection man ^ & ^ ^^j such j Q kind ag that ^

to Theory of the

ideal definition of which we have been outlining.

For it is a part of his nature, the moral side of his self-consciousness. Many men, however, do not confess the possession of any such ideal ; in fact, they say their conduct is guided in other ways. Some seek pleasure in what they do, some act according to utilitarian considerations, and some are

THE IDEAL 21

guided by an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong, while others aim at the greatest length, breadth, and depth of life, and still others control everything by the inexorable commands of right reason. These are not to be thought so many arguments against our theory, though they might seem so at first sight, for in their final analysis, all of them are but forms of the ideal. Man pictures himself as obtaining satisfaction, as ideally good, when he is happy or when he is gaining what is to his advantage, when he is obeying the moral intuitions of his nature, or when he is following the rigid mandate of Practical Reason. But in any case, he is attempting to fulfill his ideal, he is trying to be like his ideal man.

Aside from these philosophers, however, there are multitudes who do not formulate the object of their search. True, all men are philosophers, yet some more than others. But we cannot, on account of difference in ability in these matters, deny to them any ideal. All of us, as men and women, are human beings, self-conscious persons ; and whether we are conscious of the ideal in this one form or not, the main-spring of our action is some moral ideal.

So much for the ideal itself. Every man has an ideal of conduct which guides and controls his action ; he may be conscious of it as such or not. And summary

the ideal may be. defined, proximately, as the statement

incarnation in idea of those principles of action which are considered morally ideal ; or ultimately, as an " active idea of common good."

We may now pass to other considerations. To justify the stating of such a thesis as ours, the ideal should develop, but does not what we have said pre- ^deai™!"* ° f elude this ? Is not the ideal, once and for all, Possible the incarnation of moral principles ? Yes, and No. There is a difference between the eternal Incarnation of those principles — at once the Cause and Goal of our development — and our realization of that Incarnation, the degree to which the totality of moral principles is embodied in our ideal. Mankind is not only self-conscious, but progressively so. He does not know so much of himself or of his surroundings to-day as he will to-morrow, and yesterday he knew far less. The progress which occurs, and which we can observe, in any single science is present in every realm of knowledge ; and the idea of a progressive development of the ideal is as much a necessity of our nature as finite as is the presence of the ideal of our nature as self-conscious.

There are two directions in which this development of the ideal may take place. There will be, first, a Directions of development of its content. As one grows

Development older, he finds new spheres for the discharge of

moral duties. What is commonly called his standard of morality changes. It may rise to demand the most complete self-sacrifice, or it may fix upon the fulfilment of a small circle of duties, accompanied by the fullest attainment of animal pleasure. It is certain that it will include an increasing number of duties, and that the old duties will take on new meanings and will involve readjustments of life. In the morally well-balanced man, other things being equal, the direction of movement will be away from " goods of the body " toward the " goods of the soul." But individual idiosyncrasies make a general statement untrustworthy. The only thing that we can certainly maintain is the fact of development ; though relatively perhaps only change, it is absolute progress. Moral stagnation and death are practically synonymous.

There will also, very likely, be a development in the range of the ideal, though this is not so certain to appear. A few, doubtless, will ever make the aristocratic distinction on some basis or other. Yet this is to-day changing. The number of those who include in society, not simply a social clique or a local division, is constantly increasing. People are coming to believe that races are social units, and that even the peoples of the earth form one society.

In both of these lines, in the range and in the content of the ideal, there may be development ; there must be continually in one. And for the majority of people the development takes place most markedly in the content of the ideal, since it is more closely connected with the duties of everyday life.

The question how ideals change, and what are the forces

behind the development, though it does not

Manner of directly concern our discussion, merits a brief

Development reply. Incidentally, this calls up the relation

between ideals and ideas. And we observe that

THE IDEAL it is by the addition of ideas that ideals are changed. For the ideal is an active idea of common good. It is not simple, but complex, including all the ranges of our action ; and every idea of common good which approves itself to us, which we believe really worthy of realization by us, we make a part of our ideal. This is the process by which we come to see more and more of the ideal, by which its definition grows clearer and clearer. New ideas come with wider knowledge and truer insight, and the ideal develops by the incorporation of some of these ideas.

But the great controversy is over the influence of heredity and surroundings on character and conduct. Now, no one will claim that they are without effect, and that effect may be great ; but we hold that they are not the only factor. The problem may be solved in this manner. We will include under the head of surroundings man's physical nature as determined by heredity, his material circumstances and surroundings, his social relations, and the stage of civilization into which he has been born. And then, recognizing the inherent creative and self-determining power of the human will, we are compelled to say that, while they are mighty formative influences, they control action only as the agent allows them to ; that he is competent to utilize them to the furthering of his own ends, and that it is possible for him to be a peculiar man in the midst of most untoward surroundings. Giving all the credit one may desire to environment as a force in the development and direction of moral life, we must still remember that the environment is surroundings plus the man, and that the moral element is not in conditions but in choices.