On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    tronhk tm laid < fc > wn between ^ the rule aiid thi ^ bllgtitSM It feapetefietu&lly affirmed of this system , that moral obligation is made to consist in g-ehefat expediency % or utility , while in fact this is only adopted as a ruJe in subordination to the will of God *

    Whenever the latter is obvious , there cannot exist a moment ' s doubt , according to Dr . Paley ' s doctrine , as to the imperious duty of compliance ; and lie who believes in the truth of revelation , can , in comparatively but few instances , hesitate respecting the

    conduct he ought to pursue . But whenever any doubt does occuir , then the best mode of discovering the Divine will , in the opinion of this moralist , is to consider the tendency of the aetiou in contemplation to promote the welfare of society ; and it is therefore in those cases alone in which

    the will of the Deity is not explicitly declared that the latter method ought ever to be resorted to . Still , however , it is objected that with our it »~ perfect faculties and limited experience , it is impossible to ascertain what conduct will best conduce to the

    general happiness . To this it may be replied , that in matters of legislation , and on many other occasions where the public welfare is most at stake , this principle has in fact been acted upon with great success ; but bowever difficult its application may sometimes be foilnd , we may yet affirm that no other method has been

    pointed out which is not liable to objections of equal , and , in most instances , of greater force . Is not this the case with the theory substituted by Mr . Gisfoorne , who directs us , in

    estimating the virtue of our actions , to determine what use of our rights will best fulfil the purposes of our being ? The proper use of our rights , however , can be ascertained

    only by exercising our judgment , and the difficulty attending this inquiry can in no degree be less than that which occurs in examining the expediency of any action . Are then the dictates of conscience

    better entitled to our preference ? The moral sense , as it is termed , with little regard to propriety , by Lord Shaftesbury , Hutcheson and Hartley , whether we admit- it to be an original faculty iipplewvted in the human frame of distinguishing right aad wrong , or

    Untitled Article

    vtrket&iMv « i # i Mt ^ mm >^ m& % m stder % m b $ mn babiltiafc fj ^ ii ^^ r ^ dually ite rated i& tl | ft < $ gjp& % / eafly , instruction and association , ^ i ^ oI ^ g act as a useful auxiliary ja , re ^ u ^ ing the conduct , and might perhaps , &y proper cultivation , be made to po&i .

    sess more salutary influence than it has with the majority ; but it is nevertheless liable to so mtich u ^ certainty even in the same individual , and operates so differently in 4 iffer $ it f persons , according to their education , employment and society , that it must be regarded as a very unsafe guide in

    cases of difficulty , and has frequently led to the most pernicious errors . Aa a subordinate mle in discovering t ^ e Divine will , it is greatly inferior to that of general expediancy ; and to exalt this feelifcg of approval or tjie contrary into the paramount obligation to virtue , ^ s some writers have

    done , is to place the whole fabric of morality on a narrow and tottering base . Besides the confusion into which some ethical writers have fallen respecting the obligation and the rule , it is not uncommon to meet with

    others who neglect the distinction between the motives which immediately direct the conduct ( ternaed by Dugald Stewart the . efficient causes ) and Uie ultimate reason which renders it incumbent on us to act in such a

    manner . When , however , we direct our inquiry from the question why men do pursue such a mode of conduct , to why they ought ; when we ask , why they are obliged to conform to the

    dictates of conscience , why perform what they acknowledge to be their duty , why act in obedience to the Divine commands , we must at length arrive at the answer which has

    excited so much opposition ;—because such a compliance with what is clearly established to be the rule of their actions can be proved to promote their highest interest *

    This leads me to the last objection to Dr . Paley's theory , which I shall at present notice —> that of selfi&hnw-This charge , indeed , has been applied both to that modification of the

    theory which makes obligation consist in the prospect of " everlasting bjiRP 1-ness , " and that which refers it to " the greatest ultimate happ iness o the . agents There is this materia l

    Untitled Article

    510 The Leadir ^ Ol ^ mtiana tQ ^^ of Virtue

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1826, page 510, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2552/page/2/