ETHICS
563
ETHICS
severing the doctrine of right from ethics, or moral
philosophy, and developing it as a separate and in-
dependent science. The juridical order is but a part
of the moral order, even as justice is but one of the
moral virtues. The first principles of right: "Give
every man his due"; "Commit no injustice"; and the
necessary conclusions from these: "Thou shalt not
kill " ; " Thou shalt not commit adultery ' ', and the like,
belong to the natural law, and cannot be deviated
from without violating one's duty and one's neighbour's
rights, and staining one's conscience with guilt in the
sight of God.
Special ethics applies the principles of general, or theoretical, ethics to the various relations of man, and thus deduces his duties in particular. General ethics teaches that man must do good and avoid evil, and must inflict injury upon no one. Special ethics descends to particulars and demonstrates what is good or bad, right or wrong, and therefore to be done or avoided in the various relations of human life. First of all, it treats of man as an individual in his relations to God, to himself, and to his fellow-men. God is the Creator, Master, and ultimate end of man ; from these relations arise man's duties toward God. Presupposing his own individual efforts, he is, with God's assistance, to hope for eternal happiness from Him; he must love God above all things as the highest, infinite good, in such a manner that no creature shall be preferred to Him; he must acknowledge Him as his absolute lord and master, adore and reverence Him, and resign himself entirely to His holy Will. The first, highest, and most essen- tial business of man is to serve God. In case it is God's good pleasure to reveal a supernatural religion and to determine in detail the manner and means of our worship of Him, man is bound by the natural law to accept this revelation in a spirit of faith, and to order his life accordingly. Here, too, it is plain that to divorce morality from religion is impossible. Re- ligious duties, those, namely, which have direct refer- ence to God, are man's principal and most essential moral duties. Linked to these duties to God are man's duties regarding himself. Man loves himself by an intrinsic necessity of his nature. From this fact Schopenhauer drew the conclusion that the command- ment concerning self-love was superfluous. This would be true, if it were a matter of indifference how man loved himself. But such is not the case ; he must love himself with a well-ordered love. He is to be solicitous for the welfare of His soul and to do what is necessary to attain to eternal happiness. He is not his own master, but was created for the service of God; hence the deliberate arbitrary destruction of one's own life (suicide), as well as the freely intended muti- lation of self, is a criminal attack upon the proprietary right God has to man's person. Furthermore, every man is supposed to take a reasonable care to preserve his health. He has certain duties also as regards temperance; for the body must not be his master, but an instrument in the service of the soul, and hence must be cared for in so far only as is conducive to this purpose. A further duty concerns the acquisition of external material goods, as far as they are necessary for man's support and the fulfilment of his other obli- gations. This again involves the obligation to work; furthermore, God has endowed man with the capacity for work in order that he might prove himself a bene- ficial member of society; for idleness is the root of all evil. Besides these self-regarding duties, there are similar ones regarding our fellow-men: duties of love, justice, fidelity, truthfulness, gratitude, etc. The com- mandment of the love of our neighbour first received its true appreei.ition in the Christian Dispensation. Though doubtlessly contained to a certain extent in the natural law, the pagans had so lost sight of the unity of the human race, an<l of the fact that all men are members of one vast family dependent upon God, that they looked upon every stranger as an enemy.
Christianity restored to mankind the consciousness of
its unity and solidarity, and supernaturally trans-
figured the natural precept to love our neighbour, by
demonstrating that all men are children of the same
Father in heaven, were redeemed by the blood of the
same Saviour, and are destined to the same super-
natural salvation. And, better still, Christianity
provided man with the grace necessary to the fulfil-
ment of this precept and thus renewed the face of the
earth. In man's intercourse with his fellow-men the
precepts of justice and of the other allied virtues go
hand in hand with the precept of love. There exists
in man the natural tendency to assert himself when
there is question of his goods or property. He expects
his fellow-men to respect what belongs to him, and in-
stinctively resists any unjust attempt to violate this
proprietorship. He will brook an injury from no one
in all that regards his life or health, his wife or child,
his honour or good name; he resents faithlessness and
ingratitude on the part of others, and the lie by which
they would lead him into error. Yet he clearly under-
stands that only then can he reasonably expect others
to respect his rights when he in turn respects theirs.
Hence the general maxim: " Do not do to others, what
you would not wish them to do to you"; from which
are naturally deduced the general commandments
known to all men: "Thou shalt not kill, nor commit
adultery, nor steal, nor bear fal.se witness against thy
neighbour", etc. In this part of ethics it is customary
to investigate the principles of right as regards private
ownership. Has every man the right to acquire prop-
erty? Or, at least, may not society (the State)
abolish private ownership and assume possession and
control of all material goods either wholly or in part,
in order thus to distribute among the members of the
community the products of their joint industry? This
latter question is answered in the affirmative by the
Socialists; and yet, it is the experience of all ages that
the community of goods and of ownership is altogether
impracticable in larger commonwealths, and would,
if realized in any case, involve widespread slavery.
The second part of special, or applied, ethics, called by many sociology, considers man as a member of society, as far as this can be made the subject of philo- sophical investigation. Man is by nature a social being; out of his innate needs, inclinations, and tendencies the family and State necessarily arise. And first of all the Creator had to provide for the preservation and propa- gation of the human race. Man's life is brief; were no provision made for the perpetuation of the human species, the world would soon become an uninhabited solitude, a well-appointed abode without occupants. Hence God has given man the power and propensity to propagate his kind. The generative function was not primarily intended for man's individual well-being, but for the general good of his species, and in its exercise, therefore, he must be guided accordingly. This general good cannot be perfectly realized except in a lasting, in- dissoluble monogamy. The unity and indissolubility of the marriage bond are requirements of the natural law, at least in the sense that man may not on his own authority set them aside. Marriage is a Divine in- stitution, for which God Himself has provided by means of definite laws, and in regard to which, there- fore, man has not the power to make any change. The Creator might, of eo\ir.se, dispense for a time from the unity and indissolubility of the marriage tie; for, though the perfection of the married state demands these qualities, they are not of absolute necessity; the principal end of marriage may be attained to a certain degree without them. God could, therefore, for wise reasons grant a dispensation in regard to them for a certain length of time. Christ, however, restored marriage to the original perfection consonant with its nature. Moreover, He raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament and made it symbolic of His own union with the Church; and had He done nothing more in
