Elements of moral science

Front matter

VALUABLE SCHOOL BOOKS.

ELEMENTS OF MOEAL SCIENCE.

Of Woodville, Miss.

Preface

with the precepts of the Sacred Scriptures than any now in use.

In preparing this work I have endeavored to make the Bible my standard of right, and if in any instance I have failed to do so, I am not aware of the fact. I would not have any one adopt an opinion which I have advanced, unless that opinion is fully sustained by the Sacred Scriptures.

I have not attempted to invent a system of morality ; believing that if I could arrange the principles of morality which are taught in the Sacred Scriptures so as to form a book adapted to the use of schools and interesting to the general reader, enough would be accomplished.

On examining this work, you will find that many subjects are treated of in a manner quite different from the common teaching. You will find that the chapters on conscience, natural religion, and slavery are entirely different from what is usually taught in Ethics.

In preparing this work, the authors whom I have consulted mostly are Messrs. Wayland, Paley, and Whewell. In writing upon subjects

PREFACE.

vii concerning which I agreed with these authors, 1 have followed to some extent the plan which they have marked out. It is not to be expected that a work on the elements of morality shall be wholly original; for many of the principles of Ethics are too well established to admit of the possibility of producing a correct treatise on Moral Philosophy which is entirely original. I have no desire to make old things seem to be new, but wish rather, to render " honor to whom honor is due and regret exceedingly that there is so great necessity for a change in the Moral Philosophies now used.

I regret this, not because the knowledge of the fact has induced me to undergo the labor which was necessary to prepare this volume, but because the name of those who have to unlearn what they have learned amiss, in Ethics, is " Legion."

Chapter I. Elements Of Moeality

It may be somewhat perplexing to those who are about to begin the study of ethics, to decide why any work on the elements of morality should be studied, when they remember that the Sacred Scriptures contain the will of God as revealed to man, and that all the moral law with which we are acquainted, and which we are under any obligation to obey, must proceed from that source; that all the information we need to enable us to be righteous in the sight of God, 2 • . (13)

14 MOEAL OBLIGATIONS.

and all the precepts necessary for the regulation of our moral conduct, are written upon those sacred pages.

The Elements of Morality cannot suffice as a substitute for the Sacred Scriptures. Poor ; indeed, would be the substitute, and dim the light which it would afford to mankind.

The object of a work of this kind is, to treat of the principles of moral law in a lucid manner, and so to arrange the subjects as to enable the student the more readily to take a comprehensive view of the principles of morality, and thereby be aided in a more thorough investigation of the doctrines taught in the Sacred Scriptures; to show what the moral law is concerning various human actions, and to adduce such testimony, both from the Sacred Scriptures and from the laws of nature, as will suffice to establish those points of the law that may be considered doubtful, or concerning which moralists disagree.

Our object in offering some arguments drawn from natural consequences will not be to strengthen the proof which the Bible affords concerning any moral obligation ; for if it is established by Scriptural teaching that it is our duty to perform any particular act, or conform our lives to certain rules, we consider it morally certain that it is our duty to do so. But having learned our duty from the Sacred Scriptures, if

ELEMENTS OF MORALITY.

some should still doubt, there is always ample proof outside of the Bible to convince any one who is willing to know the truth, that obedience to the rules of action contained in that book, will contribute more to our happiness, both in this life and in the life to come, than any other course of conduct which we can pursue.

The truths taught in the Elements of Morality interfere with the tenets of no religious sect, for no form of worship is either discussed or recommended, only the moral law is elucidated and those principles of morality which form the basis of every system of Christian worship are explained. These are subjects of common interest concerning which we can all calmly reason with each other, and together study the important truths they teach, affected by a single impulse, — the desire of knowing the truth.

LAW.

Our object is to acquire knowledge of the Moral Law. In our investigation of the various subjects of which we must necessarily treat, we should have some standard by which to determine whether our views are true or false. We should neither be guided by the dictates of conscience, nor by what we may suppose the laws of nature teach us, in determining what is right and what wrong in morals. The Sacred Scriptures are the only infallible guide in morals. If we

MOKAL OBLIGATIONS.

can find there a " Thus saith the Lord," we know that it is right.

We are under no obligation whatever to yield obedience to any law or rule of action which men may choose to establish, except those by which we are governed in our social relations, and which are enacted by the individuals to whom the citizens of a state have, by common consent, granted the right of enactment.

If men publish a code of laws or a system of rules which they denominate Moral Science, Ethics, or Elements of Morality, we have a right, it is our duty, to try that system by the standard which God has given us. In him alone all authority over the morals of men is vested, and without his will there is no moral law.

He, as our Creator, has the right to enact laws by which we shall be governed ; His is an authority which no man can question ; a right not derived from public opinion or the will of the majority, but an inherent right, the right of a Creator to govern the thing created.

If we calmly yield our assent to rules which are said to inculcate the principles of Moral Law, without first trying them by that standard of right which our Creator has most graciously provided for us, we may be unwittingly violating those laws which we suppose we are scrupulously obeying.

The word law is a term which is familiar to every

ELEMENTS OF MORALITY.

one, and therefore need not be denned. If we should wish to define it, it would be difficult to express its meaning in words which are more familiar than the word itself. It is, however, necessary to observe that the signification of the word is sometimes varied by the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the laws by which the citizens of a state are governed, the term laws, as here used, signifies certain rules, established by proper authority, for the government of our actions as citizens of a state. When we speak of physical laws, I think the term law signifies an established sequence. When we speak of moral law, the term signifies a rule of action established by our Creator for our government as moral agents.

Man is governed by certain laws which are enacted expressly for the purpose of regulating his actions as a social being ; by certain other laws which pertain to his physical organization, and by still another form of law which has authority over the morals of men.

It is important that he should have a knowledge of the laws which govern him as a social being, in order that he may know what duties are required of him by the society of which he is a member, and that he may be conscious of the obligations which others owe to Aim. Without this knowledge he is not apt to be a contented and happy citizen. Being ignorant of the law, he is liable to trespass on his neighbor's rights 2* B

IS

MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

and offend others, not only without designing to do wrong, but without even knowing in what particular he has erred ; and his ignorance of the law offers a temptation to designing, wicked men to restrict his privileges, and claim for themselves rights superior to those which they are willing to allow him.

A knowledge of the laws by which our physical organization is governed, is necessary, that we may be enabled to preserve our health, and increase the number of our days.

If we are not acquainted with these laws, we may ignorantly perform some act which will cause us to be afflicted, render us miserable and unhappy beings, or perhaps snap the thread of life, and hurry us down to an untimely grave.

If we violate the laws of hygiene, we forfeit our right to health, and must suffer the tortures of that disease which is the natural consequent of disobedience to the law which we have violated. If we imbibe a sufficient quantity of poison to produce death, we must shortly die; if the inflicting of the penalty for this violation of law, be not averted by the timely aid of a skilful physician. If we breathe an atmosphere which is impregnated with the miasma of an epidemic disease, or come within the circle of a contagion, we are almost sure to be afflicted with that disease within whose range we have had the

ELEMENTS OF MORALITY.

temerity to venture, unless, by a knowledge of the laws which, govern the disease, we have been able previously to render ourselves impervious to its debilitating influence.

It is equally important for us to understand the moral law, lest we should, like Paul, find that we are acting contrary to the will of God, when we verily believe that we are doing God service. We do not always do right when we know our duty ; we are not apt often to do so ignorantly, and if we should, it would be merely an accident, for which we should deserve no praise, and from which we could derive no gratification, being ignorant of it. Unless we understand the moral law, and know what God wills for us to do, we cannot secure the blessings which he has promised to bestow upon those who faithfully perform his will.

The laws which govern man as a social being, direct his actions as a member of a certain community, and are designed only to govern such of his actions as have some relation to his happiness as a member of that community. They would forbid murder, and perhaps punish a violation of the law in this respect, with death ; because, if one man should be permitted to indulge his desire for revenge to so great an extent as to murder the man who has offended him, others might choose to avail themselves of the same privilege,

MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

and the whole community be in a short time dispersed or destroyed. The blessings which obedience to the civil laws secure to us are the protection of our rights, and the preservation of our liberties. The punishments are principally corporeal, and their greatest severity consists in taking the life of the criminal.

The laws which govern man's physical organization, have jurisdiction over him as an individual, and are designed to contribute to his happiness as a being independent of the rest of mankind ; and the punishment for disobedience to these laws also consists in the sufferings of the flesh, and terminates in death.

The moral law is much more comprehensive than either of the others. They regard man's happiness only as a temporal being, an inhabitant of earth ; whilst the moral law comprises rules which are capable of contributing to his happiness, not only as a temporal being, an ephemeral creature whose existence, or whose ceasing to exist, has no perceptible bearing on the economy of creation ; not as a dweller on earth alone, but also as an inhabitant of eternity.

The moral law differs in its operations from the civil law and the laws governing our physical organization, in several remarkable particulars.

The punishment which is inflicted for a violation of these laws, usually follows the offence in quick succession ; but the punishment for a violation of moral

ELEMENTS OF MORALITY.

law, if inflicted on earth at all, is never fully completed in this world. Our Creator is merciful, and delays the punishment for moral depravity until the whole journey of life is passed over, except so far as our immorality causes us to violate laws governing our physical nature. He gives us ample time to change our conduct, to cease to do evil, and learn to do well, before He pronounces the final sentence, " Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire I"

The punishment which we must endure for offences against the moral law, though delayed for a longer period of time, being not inflicted in life, except to a very limited extent, is addressed to the soul ; beginning after death, and continuing through vast eternity.

Inasmuch as the soul is capable of feeling intensely the sufferings that may be inflicted for disobeying God, and since that suffering is to last through all eternity, we must perceive that the difference between the penalty to be inflicted for a violation of civil or physical law, and the never ceasing torment of an eternal banishment from the presence of Grod, is incalculable.

The rewards which are bestowed on men for obedience to these different forms of law, are as dissimilar as the punishments which are inflicted for a violation of them.

Our reward for obedience to the laws of our country,

MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

is the protection of our property, our lives, and our civil liberties.

The reward which is granted us for obedience to the laws of our physical organization, is health, and consequently long life.

The reward of obedience to the moral law, as contained in the Sacred Scriptures, is a crown of glory that fadeth not away ; the joys of life everlasting.

It should be the grand object of our lives, then, to acquire a knowledge of the moral law, and obey its requisitions. Its authority is over us always ; the blessings of obedience to its requirements are of the most exalted nature, enduring for ever ; and the suffering for disobedience is intense and unceasing agony.

The moral law condemns or excuses us, according to our actions.

In acquiring a knowledge of the moral law, one of the first and most important steps is to comprehend the nature of our actions. Our actions are always right when performed in obedience to the moral law, and wrong when in violation of the moral precepts.

It becomes a question of great importance to know how to decide whether our actions are in obedience to the moral law or not, when we remember that it is by our actions that we shall be judged; that if our actions are in obedience to the will of Grod, He can at last receive us with the welcome plaudit, "Well done,

ELEMENTS OF MORALITY.

good and faithful servant; but he cannot say well done, when we have not acted in obedience to his will.

The following passages of the Sacred Scriptures confirm us in the opinion that it is by our actions that we are to be judged. Sam. i. 2, 3, "For the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed." James ii. 24, " By works a man is justified." Matt. xvi. 27, " For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels ; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Eev. xx. 12, " And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books were opened ; and another book was opened, which is the book of life ; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

It is plain that an action is right which is in accordance with the will of God, and wrong when it is not. If we know the will of God and have the power to obey it, we may, without doubt, do that which is right. But many occasions occur in which we are doubtful what it is our duty to do, and even when we know our duty, it may be exceedingly difficult to perform it ; the path of duty may be, and often is, strewn with thorns. No one, I suppose, will imagine that we are excusable for not doing our duty, simply because it is difficult for us to perform it. But, owing to the influence which our own actions exert upon our happiness, it

MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

will be interesting and profitable for us to study very minutely the nature of human actions.

Since sane men never do anything without having some design in view, without desiring to accomplish some object by the action wbich they perform, and since there can be no doubt as to the nature of the intention, if we know what one's intention is ; we usually endeavor to learn what is the intention which has prompted a man to the performance of a certain action, before we condemn or excuse him. If he intends to do what is right, and fails to do it from some cause which he has no power to avert, we think he is excusable. This, however, cannot make a wrong action right. If a man thus intending to do right fails to do so, and unintentionally does something that is wrong, he may be excused for the wrong he has done, but cannot claim a reward for having done right, merely because he intended to do so. How can he claim a reward for doing right, when he knows that he has done wrong ? If, during life, we suppose that we have been performing the will of God in all our acts, when we appear before the Majesty on high and learn that we have been acting contrary to his will, can we say, Lord, I have performed Thy will on earth, what blessing wilt Thou confer on Thy servant ?

We cannot reasonably expect a reward for actions we have not performed, or for those things which we have done that we ought not to have done ; but we may hope to be forgiven, if our misdeeds were performed under the influence of a desire to do right, and expect a reward for doing those acts which our Father in heaven has promised to reward us for performing.

The nature of the actions which men perform is frequently very different from that of the intention with which they act. A man may intend to tell the truth, but from a lack of correct information on the subject concerning which he is speaking, may utter that which is false. We would not accuse that man of a want of veracity, nor could we say that he had told the truth.

The question may be presented in this way : If a man does wrong when he intends to do right, does he deserve praise or blame ? He would certainly deserve the approbation of all good men for having a good intention ; that is, for intending to do right ; but this does not cover all the grounds of the question. He may have done wrong through ignorance, and his ignorance of his duty may have been his own fault. In this case he would not deserve praise, although he intended to do right ; for his failure to do so would be his own fault. He would be twice in fault. First, because he had not used the means in his power to learn his duty ; and secondly, because he performed an act which was wrong. If he did wrong when he intended to do right, and accident, or some agency 3

MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

entirely beyond his control, changed the nature of the action, then he would be free from all blame, and deserve only praise. His intention then could alone be taken into account, for the act performed could not justly be considered his act ; since some unavoidable circumstance entirely changed the nature of the act which he attempted to perform. For example, Sir Walter Tyrrel, whilst hunting with King William Eufus, aimed an arrow at a fleeting deer which they were pursuing with all the ardor of an exciting chase. The arrow, though aimed by the most skilful archer in England, was directed amiss, and striking lightly against the side of a tree, turned from the direction in which it was aimed, and entering the body of the king, caused his death.

In such a case the intention only could be considered, since the sport in which they were engaged was strictly lawful. And the act of killing the king could not justly be called the act of Sir Walter. His act was that of shooting at a deer. The fact of killing the king was the result of a force acting upon his arrow after it had left his hand, and when he had not the least power over it.

In such cases we are inclined to pity rather than blame the individual who is so nearly concerned with an event which, if voluntarily performed by him, would render him liable to suffer the severest punish-

ELEMENTS OF MORALITY.

ment. And we have no reason to believe that our Creator would hold one guilty who is so situated.

In most of the acts which men perform, the action harmonizes with the intention. But that a man does not always perform the act which he intends, is so well known that the laws of enlightened nations provide for such occurrences, which are deemed accidental and not punishable.

Accident, or some agency which a man cannot control, may prevent him from performing a wicked design. He is then culpable on account of the intention. As in the case previously mentioned, if he intends to perform an act which is right, but some agency which he cannot control changes the nature of the act, he is not held guilty; so, in the present case, if he intends to perform a wrong action, and some agency which he cannot control changes the nature of the act he would perform, he is held guilty, according to moral law, of the act which he intended to perform. For the reason before given, the act cannot justly be considered his own if its nature is changed by accident or some agency which he cannot control; but the wrong intention certainly is his, and he deserves as much blame for intending to do wrong as he would have deserved praise, had his intention been to do right.

We find, then, but two cases in which a man will be

MORAL OBLIGATIONS.

judged by his intention only, and not by the act performed ; and in both these cases the act performed is not strictly his own act. If we were to be judged by our intention alone, and not at all by the act performed or any collateral circumstance, if our intention to do right makes a wrong action a right one or our intention to do wrong makes a right action wrong, all we have to do, in order to fill the requirements of the moral law, is to intend to do right. We are, according to this rule, under no obligation at all to make an effort to learn what is right, because, although we may have the means of learning God's will, still we need not put ourselves to any trouble, if we will just intend to do right ; this is all the rule requires of us, and according to it we are guiltless, no matter how many wrong acts we perform, if we only intend to do right. By this rule, even if we have a direct command from God to perform a certain act, in a certain way, if we intend to perform the act or something else like it, it matters not if we do choose a different mode of performing it from that which we were commanded, it will do just as well. We might even think our plan of obeying the command better than the one ordered ; if we are to be judged by our intention only, we certainly would deserve great praise for thus acting, although our plan might pervert entirely the nature of the act which God intended us to perform.

ELEMENTS OF MORALITY.

This rule will not stand the test which ought to be applied to every question in morals, viz., the teaching of the sacred Scriptures.

Let us consider the case of Saul (1 Samuel xv.). God commanded that King Saul should " smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they had, and spare them not ; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." King Saul obeyed the command in part only ; he utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword, but spared Agag the kiflg of the Amalekites. He also spared the best of the sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the Lord. His intention was evidently right. He intended to obey the Lord, but chose his own plan for doing it ; and, even in the portion of the command which he disobeyed, the circumstances were of such a nature as to prove that his intention was to please God. He spared a part of the sheep and oxen, not for his own use, but to sacrifice unto the Lord. He considered that he had done right and performed the command of God. When Samuel came to him, Saul said, " Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord." Samuel said, "What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear ?" If Saul had been judged according to the intention only, and not according to the act lie performed, which was an 3* act of disobedience, when it was wholly in his power to have obeyed the command of the Lord, his kingdom would not have been taken away from him, nor would he have been compelled to endure the sufferings which were the penalty of his disobedience. If Saul had been judged according to the intention, Samuel would not have said to him, " Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." He would have thought that Saul deserved praise rather than blame. The case of Uzza teaches the same lesson. (2 Samuel vi.) The case also of the prophet who went out of Judah unto Bethel to make a certain prophecy, also teaches us that we are to be judged by our actions, and not by our intentions, except when it is impossible for us to do what we intend. The example to which we allude may be found in 1 Kings xiii.

Such examples prove conclusively that we shall not be judged according to our intention only, but according to our works. We are satisfied that the Lord "will render to every man according to his deeds;" that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ ; every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

We are held guilty for intending to do wrong, and deserving of praise for intending to do right, when it

ELEMENTS OF MOEALITY. 31

is impossible on account of circumstances that we cannot control, for us to perform the actions which we intend doing. Matthew v. 28, furnishes an example to prove that we are held guilty of an evil action, if we intend to perform such deed. But every evil desire that enters a man's mind cannot be charged against him as a crime. He may suppress such a desire from pious motives ; in this case, he would deserve praise rather than blame ; not for allowing a wicked desire to enter his mind, but for rejecting it from praiseworthy motives.

No man is, perhaps, so pure that unrighteous desires never enter his mind ; temptations of this kind may assail the best of men ; but he who invariably rejects every evil wish, will seldom be tempted by impure desires, and if he is, he can readily resist their persuasive influence.

If we intend to perform a righteous action, but are prevented from doing so by some cause which we cannot control, we are accounted worthy of praise. If we intend to do a favor for a friend, and prove our intention by making every effort in our power to serve him, even if we do fail to accomplish our object, still he will feel grateful for our efforts in his behalf, and will remember our kind intentions with pleasing emotions.

Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac, his son, to

MOEAL OBLIGATIONS.

the Lord, in obedience to the Lord's command, and he was only prevented from doing so by divine interposition. After he had bonnd his son on the rude altar, and even whilst he was raising the glittering steel to plunge it into the bosom of his devoted child, an angel of the Lord called unto him from heaven and said, "Lay not thy hand on the lad, neither do thou anything unto him." This obedience of Abraham in sucn a case was owing to his unbounded faith in the Lord; therefore the Lord imputed that faith unto him for righteousness. We have here apparently a case of the Lord's rewarding a man because his intention was to obey the command which he had received ; but in this case there was no act of disobedience whatever, for Abraham was prevented from performing the first command by a later command revoking the former, and that, too, at the very moment when his obedience to the former command was being consummated. Even in this case the reward was not granted for intention alone ; the intention was accompanied by every corresponding act of obedience that he was allowed to perform ; and he ceased not to perform the command which God had given him until that command was revoked.