THE MORAL IDEAL Types of ethical theory: Hedonism, Rationalism, Eudæmonism.-We are now prepared to attempt the solution of the ethical problem, the nature of the moral ideal or of the ethical end. We are led to state the problem in this way, whether we approach it from the ancient standpoint of good, or from the modern standpoint of duty and law. In the former case, we find that conduct, being the organisation of impulses into rational ends, implies, as its unifying or organising principle, the constant presence and operation, implicit or explicit, of some single central end, of some comprehensive ideal of the total meaning of life, to be realised in the details of its several activities. The logic of the life of a rational being implies the guidance of a supreme end as its central and organising principle. The question of ethics in this aspect of it is: What is the chief end of man? What may he, being such as he is, worthily set before him as the summum bonum of his life? Which of the alternative and conflicting types of selfhood may he take as his ideal? If, on the other hand, we approach the problem from the more modern standpoint of law and duty, we are led to substantially the same statement of it. A rational being cannot, as such, be content to live a life of mere obedience to rule, even to the rule of conscience. Mere authority, human or divine, does not permanently satisfy him. The conflicts, or at least the difficulties, which arise in the application of the several moral laws or principles to the details of practice, lead to the attempt to codify these laws, and such codification implies once more a unifying principle-the discovery of the common 'spirit of the laws.' For their absoluteness pertains to the spirit and not to the letter. They are the several paths towards some absolute good. Why is it right to speak the truth, to be just, and temperate, and benevolent ? What is the common ideal of which these are the several manifestations-the ideal which abides even in their change? The law of the several moral laws can be found only in the claim of an absolute ideal; their authority must find its seat and explanation in the persistent and rightful dominion of some one end over all the other possible or actual ends of human life. Now, when we look at the history of ethical thought, we find that, from the beginning of reflection down to our own time, two opposed types of theory have maintained themselves, and each type has based itself, more or less explicitly, upon a corresponding view of human nature. On the one hand, man has been regarded as, either exclusively or fundamentally, a sentient being; and upon this psychology there has been built up a hedonistic theory of the moral ideal. If man is essentially a sentient being, his good must be a sentient good, or pleasure; this type of theory we may call Hedonism, or the Ethics of Sensibility. It is the theory of the Cyrenaics and Epicureans amongst the ancients, and of the Utilitarians, whether empirical, rational, or evolutional, in modern times. On the other hand, it has been held with no less confidence that man is, either exclusively or essentially, a rational being; and that his good is, therefore, not a sentient but a rational good. This type of theory we may call Rationalisın, or the Ethics of Reason. It is the theory of the ancient Cynics and Stoics, and, in modern times, of the Intuitionists and of Kant. Either theory might claim for itself the vague term 'self-realisation.' The one finds in feeling, the other in reason, the deeper and truer self; to the one the claims of the sentient, to the other the claims of the rational self, seem paramount. A closer study of the course of moral reflection reveals two forms- -an extreme and a moderate, of either type of ethical theory. Extreme Hedonism, excluding reason altogether, or resolving it into sensibility, would exhibit the ideal life as a life of pure sentiency, undisturbed by reason, or into which reason has been absorbed. Extreme Rationalism, on the other hand, denying the place of feeling in the good of a rational being, would exhibit the ideal life as a life of pure thought, undisturbed by any intrusion of sensibility. But neither of these extremes can long maintain itself. Neither element can be absolutely excluded, without manifestly deducting from the total efficiency of the resulting life. Accordingly we find that, while the logic of their positions would separate the theories as widely as possible, the necessities of the moral life itself tend to bring them nearer to each other. Hedonism cannot long avoid the reference to reason, Rationalism the reference to sensibility. Hence result a moderate version of the Ethics of Sensibility, which, instead of excluding reason, subordinates it to feeling, and a moderate version of the Ethics of Reason, which, instead of excluding feeling, subordinates it to reason. Moderate Hedonism recognises the function of reason, first in devising the means towards an end which is constituted by sensibility, and later even in the constitution of the end itself. Moderate Rationalism recognises the place of sensibility, at first as the mere accompaniment of the good life, and later as entering into the very texture of goodness itself. Such an approach of the one theory to the other, such a tendency to compromise between them, suggests the more excellent way of a theory which shall base itself on the F |