according to which the fundamental principle of the conduct of mankind is a desire to promote their own gratification or interest. This theory has appeared

own.

in various forms, from a very early period in the history of Ethical science; but the most remarkable promoter of it in more modern times was Mr. Hobbes. According to him, man is influenced entirely by what seems calculated, more immediately, or more remotely, to promote his own interest; whatever does so he considers as right,—the opposite as wrong. He is driven to society by necessity, and then, whatever promotes the general good he considers as ultimately calculated to promote his This system is founded upon a fallacy similar to that referred to under the former head. Virtuous conduct does impart gratification, and that of the highest kind; and, in the strictest sense of the word, it promotes the true interest of the agent : but this tendency is the effect, not the cause; and never can be considered as the principle which imparts to conduct its character of virtue; nor do we perform it merely because it affords us gratification, or promotes our interest. The hypothesis, indeed, may be considered as distinctly contradicted by facts,— for, even in our own experience, it is clear, that the pleasure attending an act of generosity or virtue in ourselves, as well as our approbation of it in others, is diminished or destroyed by the impression that there was a selfish purpose to answer by it.

There is a modification of the selfish system which attempts to get rid of its more offensive aspect by a

singular and circuitous chain of moral emotions. We have experienced, it is said, that a certain attention to the comfort or advantage of others contributes to our own. A kind of habit is thus formed, by which we come at last to seek the happiness of others for their own sake; so that, by this process, actions which at first were considered only as inexpedient, from being opposed to self-love, at length and insensibly come to be considered as immoral. This can be considered as nothing more than an ingenious play upon words, and deserves only to be mentioned as an historical fact, in a view of those speculations by which this important subject has been obscured and bewildered.

Another modification of the theories of morals remains to be mentioned; namely, that of the distinguished Paley. This eminent writer is decidedly opposed to the doctrine of a moral sense or moral principle; but the system which he proposes to substitute in its place must be acknowledged to be liable to considerable objections. He commences with the proposition that virtue is doing good to mankind, in obedience to the will of God, and for the sake of everlasting happiness. The good of mankind, therefore, is the subject-the will of God, the rule -and everlasting happiness, the motive of human virtue. The will of God, he subsequently goes on to show, is made known to us partly by revelation, and partly by what we discover of his designs and dispositions from his works, or, as we usually call it, the light of nature. From this last source he thinks

it is clearly to be inferred, that God wills and wishes the happiness of his creatures; consequently actions which promote that will and wish must be agreeable to him, and the contrary. The method of ascertaining the will of God concerning any action, by the light of nature, therefore, is, to inquire into the tendency of the action to promote or diminish general happiness. Proceeding on these grounds, he then arrives at the conclusion, that whatever is expedient is right; and that it is the utility of any moral rule alone which constitutes the obligation of it. In his further elucidation of this theory, Dr. Paley admits, that an action may be useful in an individual case which is not right. To constitute it right, it is necessary that it shall be " expedient upon the whole,-at the long run, in all its effects, collateral and remote as well as those which are immediate and direct."

Without entering on the various peculiarities of this system, there are two considerations which appear to be serious objections to it as a doctrine to be applied to practical purposes. (1.) If we suppose a man deliberating respecting an action, which he perceives would be eminently expedient and useful in an individual case, and which he feels to be highly desirable in its immediate reference to that case; we may naturally ask whether he is in a likely condition to find his way to a sound conclusion respecting the consequences of the action " upon the whole, at the long run, in all its consequences, remote and collateral." It may certainly be doubted, whether, in any case, there is not great danger of

differences of opinion arising respecting this extended and ultimate expediency of an action; and, in particular, whether in the man now referred to, the very circumstances of his perception of great and immediate utility, and the state of desire connected with it, do not constitute a moral condition which might interfere, in a very material degree, with his calculation as to its ultimate expediency. (2.) Independently of this consideration, we may be allowed to doubt, whether any human being can arrive at such an extensive knowledge, as this theory seems to render necessary, of all the consequences of an action, remote and collateral. This would appear to constitute a kind and a degree of knowledge to be found only in the omniscience of the Deity.

If these observations are well founded, I think we cannot hesitate to maintain, that, on such a nice calculation of consequences, it is impossible to found a rule of morals in any degree adapted to the necessities of man. The same objection applies to every doctrine which does not recognise the supreme authority of conscience as an original part of our moral constitution, warning us of certain conduct as immutably right, and certain other conduct as immutably wrong, without any regard either to our own advantage or to our judgment of the tendency of the deeds. Whenever we depart from this great principle, we reduce every moral decision to what must primarily be a process of reasoning, and in which, consequently, there may be differences of opinion respecting the tendency of actions, instead of that absolute conviction which the deep import»

ance of the subject renders indispensable. It may, further, be confidently stated as a matter of fact, that a conscientious man, in considering an action which involves a point of moral duty, does not enter upon any such calculation of its consequences. He simply asks himself, is it right? and so decides, according to an impulse within which he feels to be a part of his moral constitution, susceptible of no explanation, and not admitting of being referred to any other principle.

The foundation of all these Theories of Morals, then, seems to be the impression, that there is nothing right or wrong, just or unjust in itself; but that our ideas of right and wrong, justice and injustice arise either from actual law or mutual compact, or from our view of the tendencies of actions. There is another modification of these theories, but liable to similar objection, which ascribes the origin of right and wrong directly to the will of the Deity, and holds that there is nothing wrong which might not have been right, if he had so ordained it. By the immutability of moral distinctions, as opposed to all these theories, we mean-that there are certain actions which are immutably right, and which we are bound in duty to perform, and certain actions which are immutably wrong, apart from any other consideration whatever; and that an absolute conviction of this is fixed upon us, in the moral principle or conscience, independently of knowledge derived from any other source respecting the will or laws of the Almighty. By this system, therefore,