fuBRARV I Of 1 I ONIVERStTY I CALIFOUNIA 1 I SANOIEGO J ^ /c::c:>c: THE BASIS OF MOKALITY ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER Uranalateft witb ^ntrofeuctfon anb "Hotcs bg ARTHUR BRODRIOK BULLOCK, M.A. TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE LONDON SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO., LIMITED PATERNOSTER SQUARE 1903 PRINTED BT HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY LD., LONPOK AND AYLESBURY. — PRIZE ESSAY ON THE BASIS OE MORALITY NOT APPROVED BY THE DANISH ROYAL SOCIETY OF SCIENCES, Copenhagen, 30 Janiiary, 1840. "To preach Morality is easy, to found it diflBcult." (ScHOPENHAUBB : C/e6er den WiUen in der Natur ; p. 128.) Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/basisofmoralityOOschoiala MATRI CARiSSIMAE. CONTENTS. PAGK translator's preface . ix translator's introduction . xi THE QUESTION ........ 1 part I. INTRODUCTION. CHAP. I. THE PROBLEM . .5 II. GENERAL RETROSPECT . .12 IPart II. CRITIQUE OF KANT'S BASIS OF ETHICS. I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 23 II. ON THE IMPERATIVE FORM OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS . 28 m. ON THE ASSUMPTION OF DUTIES TOWARDS OUR- SELVES IN PARTICULAR . .38 IV. ON THE BASIS OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS. 42 NOTE 76 V. ON THE LEADING PRINCIPLE OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS 82 VI. ON THE DERIVED FORMS OF THE LEADING PRINCIPLE OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS 92 vii VUl CONTENTS. CHAP. PAGE VII. kant's doctrine of conscience . .106 VIII. kant's doctrine of the intelligible and em- pirical CHARACTER. THEORY OF FREEDOM . .115 NOTE .... 121 IX. FICHTE'S ETHICS AS A MAGNIFYING GLASS FOR THE ERRORS OF THE KANTIAN . .124 part III. THE FOUNDING OF ETHICS. I. CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM . .133 II. SCEPTICAL VIEW 135 III. ANTIMORAL INCENTIVES 150 IV. CRITERION OF ACTIONS OF MORAL WORTH . .161 V. STATEMENT AND PROOF OF THE ONLY TRUE MORAL INCENTIVE 165 VI. THE VIRTUE OF JUSTICE 176 VII. THE VIRTUE OF LOVING-KINDNESS . .198 VIII. THE PROOF NOW GIVEN CONFIRMED BY EXPERIENCE 206 IX. ON THE ETHICAL DIFFERENCE OF CHARACTER . 237 Ipait IV. ON THE METAPHYSICAL EXPLANATION OF THE PRIMAL ETHICAL PHAENOMENON. I. HOW THIS APPENDIX MUST BE UNDERSTOOD . 257 II. THE METAPHYSICAL GROUNDWORK . .264 JUDICIUM REGIAE DANICAE SCIENTIARI 5l SOCIETATIS . 283 TRANSLATOR'S PHEEACE. This translation was undertaken in the belief that there are many English-speaking people who feel more than a merely superficial interest in ethical research, but who may not read German with suifi- cient ease to make them care to take up the original. The present Essay is one of the most important contributions to Ethics since the time of Kant, and, as such, is indispensable to a thorough knowledge of the subject. Moreover, from whatever point of view it be regarded,—whether the reader find, when he closes the book, that his conviction harmonises with the conclusion reached, or not ; it would be difiicult to find any treatise on Moral Science more calculated to stimulate thought, and lift it out of infantile imitation of some prescribed pattern. The believer in the Kantian, or any other, basis of Ethics, could hardly measure the strength or the weakness of his own position more surely than by comparing it with the Schopenhauerian ; while he who is yet X translator's preface. in search of a foundation will find much in the follow- ing pages to claim his attention. Those acquainted with the luminous imagery, the subtle irony, the brusque and penetrating vigour of the German, will doubtless admit that it is no easy task to reduce Schopenhauer to adequate English prose ; and if this has been attempted by the present writer, no one can be more conscious than he of the manifold shortcomings discoverable. But such as it is, the work is heartily offered to all who still follow the true student's rule, ^'^laWg; iaolbt Jjt larn^ xcnb glaHg hcl§t" with the single hope that it may help, however slightly, to widen their knowledge, and ripen their judgment. My friend, R. E. Candy, Esq., I.C.S., has kindly given me information concerning several Indian names. Rome : June, 1902. TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION. "Ou 8i 6eo\ TifiSxriv, 6 Koi fia^evfieuos alvf2. —Theognis : 169. In 1837 the Danish Royal Society of Sciences pro- pounded, as subject for a prize competition, the question with which this treatise opens ; and Schopen- hauer, who was glad to seize the opportunity of becoming better known, prepared, and sent to Copen- hagen, the earliest form of " The Basis of Morality." In January, 1840, the work was pronounced unsuc- cessful, though there was no other candidate. In September of the same year it was published by the author, with only a few unimportant additions, but preceded by a long introduction, which, cast in the form of an exceedingly caustic philippic, is, in its way, a masterpiece. In 1860, (only a month before Schopenhauer's death,) the second edition was printed with many enlargements and insertions, the short preface, dated August being one of the last things he wrote.^ The reason why the prize was withheld is not far to seek, and need not detain us. At that time the philosophical atmosphere was saturated with Hegel, and, to a certain extent, with Fichte ; hence ^ He died September 21st. " xii translator's introduction. it is easy to imagine with what ruffled, not to say, scandalised feelings the Academy must have risen from its perusal of the work. Moreover, putting Hegel and Fichte out of the question, the position advanced was in 1840 so new, indeed so paradoxical (as Schopenhauer himself admits) ; there is at times such an aggressiveness in the style ; the whole essay is so much more calculated to startle than to con- ciliate ; that we cannot feel much surprise at the official decision. In the Judgment published by the Society three reasons are given for its unfavourable attitude. The second is declared to be not only dissatisfaction with the mode of discussion (ipsa disserendi forma), but also inability to see that Schopenhauer proves his case. x\s the third is alleged the " unseemly language employed in connection with certain '^summi philosophV (Hegel and Fichte). These two objec- tions are of course in themselves perfectly legitimate, and how far the Academy was right or wrong may be left for the reader to determine. But the first reason stated is of a different kind, and affords as neat an instance of self-stultification proceeding ex cathedra as can well be found. It is true that the question is worded vaguely enough, but if it means anything, it asks where the " philosophiae moralis fons et fundamentum"— the foundation of moral science— is to be sought for, i.e., where it is to be found. Turning to the Judgment we read : " He " (Schopenhauer) " has omitted to deal with the essential part of the question, apparently thinking that he was required to establish some fundamental TRANSLATORS INTRODUCTION. Xlll " principle of Ethics : which he was required to do, unless the Society's Latin is borrowed from NetjjaXo- KOKKvyia. And then it goes on to declare that he treated as secondary, indeed as an opus supererogationis, the very thing which the Academy intended should occupy the first place, namely, the connection between Metaphysics and Ethics.^ But the " metaphysicae et etkicae nexus,^' so far from being formulated in the question as the chief point to be considered, is not even mentioned ! The Society thus denies having asked what it actually did ask, while the discussion, which it asserts was specially indicated, is not suggested by a single word. Its embarrassment is sufficiently shown by this unworthy shifting, to enlarge upon which would here be out of place.^ It is not intended to offer any criticism either on Schopenhauer's main position in this essay, or on the various side-issues involved. The reader is supposed to be accurately acquainted with the funda- mentals of his philosophy, as contained in Die Welt als Wille unci Vorstellmiff, and is invited to be the critic himself. But perhaps a few remarks on the structure and general trend of the work may not be amiss. After preliminary considerations, partly to show ' It should be noticed that this " essential part of the question," a few lines before, is said to have been passed over altogether (pmisso enim eo, quod }X)tissimum posttdabatur). * Any one who cares to see how this Judgment, the Danish Royal Society of Sciences, Hegel, Fichte, and " Professors of Philosophy" in general, are all pulverised together under our sage's withering wrath and trenchant irony, should read his Introduction to each Edition. xiv translator's introduction. the difficulty of the subject, partly to clear the ground (Part I.), the treatise opens with a searching critique of Kant's Ethical Basis, of the Leading Principle of his system, and of its derived forms. (Part II., Chapters I. -VI.) ^ Schopenhauer's conclusion is that the Categorical Imperative is a very cleverly woven web, yet in reality nothing but the old theological basis in disguise, the latter being the indispensable, if invisible, clothes' peg for the former ; and that Kant's tou7- de main of deducing his Moral Theology from Ethics is like inverting a pyramid. The theory of Conscience is next discussed (Chapter VII.). The half- supernatural element which Kant introduced under the highly dramatic form of a court of justice holding ing secret session in the breast, is examined, and eliminated ; and Conscience is defined as the know- ledge that we have of ourselves through our acts. But if, so far, the result obtained is distinctly unfavourable to Kant, Schopenhauer is glad to agree with him on one point, namely, the theory of Freedom, to a brief notice of which he now passes (Chapter VIII.).