The Basis of Morality

THE BASIS OF MORALITY

BY ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER

A Digireads.com Book

Digireads.com Publishing

Print ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-4309-2

Ebook ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-4378-8

This edition copyright © 2012

Please visit www.digireads.com

CONTENTS

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION

THE QUESTION

PART I. INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM.

CHAPTER II. GENERAL RETROSPECT.

PART II. CRITIQUE OF KANT'S BASIS OF ETHICS.

CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

CHAPTER II. ON THE IMPERATIVE FORM OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS.

CHAPTER III. ON THE ASSUMPTION OF DUTIES TOWARDS OURSELVES IN PARTICULAR.

CHAPTER IV. ON THE BASIS OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS.

CHAPTER V. ON THE LEADING PRINCIPLE OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS.

CHAPTER VI. ON THE DERIVED FORMS OF THE LEADING PRINCIPLE OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS.

CHAPTER VII. KANT'S DOCTRINE OF CONSCIENCE.

CHAPTER VIII. KANT'S DOCTRINE OF THE INTELLIGIBLE AND EMPIRICAL CHARACTER. THEORY OF FREEDOM.

CHAPTER IX. FICHTE'S ETHICS AS A MAGNIFYING GLASS FOE THE ERRORS OF THE KANTIAN.

PART III. THE FOUNDING OF ETHICS.

CHAPTER I. CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM.

CHAPTER II. SCEPTICAL VIEW.

CHAPTER III. ANTIMORAL INCENTIVES.

CHAPTER IV. CRITERION OF ACTIONS OF MORAL WORTH.

CHAPTER V. STATEMENT AND PROOF OF THE ONLY TRUE MORAL INCENTIVE.

CHAPTER VI. THE VIRTUE OF JUSTICE.

CHAPTER VII. THE VIRTUE OF LOVING-KINDNESS.

CHAPTER VIII. THE PROOF NOW GIVEN CONFIRMED BY EXPERIENCE.

CHAPTER IX. ON THE ETHICAL DIFFERENCE OF CHARACTER.

PART IV. ON THE METAPHYSICAL EXPLANATION OF THE PRIMAL ETHICAL PHENOMENON.

CHAPTER I. HOW THIS APPENDIX MUST BE UNDERSTOOD.

CHAPTER II. THE METAPHYSICAL GROUNDWORK.

JUDICIUM REGIAE DANICAE SCIENTIARUM SOCIETATIS.

'To preach Morality is easy, to find it difficult.'—

(SCHOPENHAUER: Ueber den Willen in der Natur; p. 128)

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

A period of twenty years (1840-1860) elapsed between the first and second edition of the original of this work. At that time there were fewer people who cared to investigate the subject; the traditional ethical basis in one or other of its different forms was mostly taken for granted; all attacks on the philosophical orthodoxy of the day were viewed with aversion; and, lastly, the book was only accessible in German. For these reasons the number of readers was very limited.

Since then much has changed. The world's ethical systems, as well as the religions on which they rest, have been subjected to exact investigation, and there has sprung up a large and increasing class of serious persons, who follow with interest the results obtained.

This translation was published in 1903, and the fact that after twelve years a second edition is called for, may, it is hoped, be a sign that the belief then expressed in the preface was not unfounded.

It would be difficult to overrate the importance at the present time of the question: What is the Basis of Morality?

The Will, the character, is primary; the intellect secondary. The Will is in its essence egoistic; hence, despite all the progressive achievements of the intellect, humanity is none the happier, and history remains little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind. Nor can it be said that the old theological basis of ethics, with its other-worldly standpoint, has been successful in establishing, or even in promoting, peace and good-will on earth. For many a century this basis has been tried with negative result, and now it is slowly but surely passing away. We may show that the external anthropomorphic artificer of the past is but the mythical presentment of the internal inscrutable Power, of which man and the phenomenal universe are the objectivation in terms of his intellect; we may show that in human thought the former view is but the natural and necessary precursor of the latter; but it is difficult to see how the new position is likely to provide a more efficient motive than the old for inducing men to walk in the paths of justice and loving-kindness. Left to itself, Egoism will certainly continue to spread, like some foul and poisonous growth, eating away the healthy tissues of human society, changing well-being into misery, order into chaos, men into fiends.

In this treatise, Compassion, excluding, as it does, every egoistic motive, whether direct or indirect, is presented as the sole remedy, as the one fount of all true virtue, as the only force capable of lightening the world's suffering.

It should be explained that the word translated Compassion is in the original Mitleid, which is used in a far wider sense than that usually attaching to its English synonym, a term that was chosen for want of a better. By Compassion is meant that which Wordsworth felt when he said:

"To me the meanest flower that blows can give

Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears."

It is the offspring of that intuitive perception which breaks through the Mâyâ—the veil of delusion, the principium individuationis, and reveals the identity of the ego with the non-ego; so that a man is thereby irresistibly impelled to feel for everything that lives just as he feels for himself,—to be happy with its happiness, and to suffer with its suffering—because he is conscious that it is in fact his very self in another appearance-form.

It will be seen that this motive of Compassion, which is the only conceivable basis of non-egoistic, that is, of true morality, rests on no destructible foundation. It is the corollary of the great principle of the Unity of Life, which, discerned at all times by a few gifted natures, has now been lifted out of the region of doubt by modern science, and accepted as an axiom.

Meanwhile new generations are pressing into existence, and growing up without any guide as to conduct except the promptings of their own egoism, which seeks to assert itself in this world all the more fiercely in proportion as belief in another is given up; and already the desolating effects of this disintegrating process on the whole fabric of society are becoming manifest.

It would be of incalculable value to the human race, if all the governments of the world, recognizing the immense importance of the question, were to render obligatory in all schools the study of ethics viewed from the standpoint of this treatise,—a standpoint, which in its simplest aspect is well within the grasp of quite young children. The subject, so treated, would form no piece of sterile academic drill, but would become a living force, if entrusted to teachers filled with single-hearted devotion to it, and able to open the minds of the young by the magnetism of their personality.

Hitherto man has failed to perceive that his deadliest foe is his own egoism, which, to gratify itself, has always distorted and obscured the teaching offered by a truer insight. Is it vain to hope that he may at last grow weary of the misery, which in his blindness he inflicts on himself, and seek the way of deliverance?

Sors de l'enfance, ami, réveille-toi!

ROME: August, 1915.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

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 sufficient 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 harmonizes with the conclusion reached, or not; it would be difficult 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 in search of a foundation will find much in the following pages to claim his attention.

Those acquainted with the luminous imagery, the subtle irony, the brusque and penetrating vigor 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, "Gladly wolde be Ierne and gladly teche," 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

"Ον δὲ θεοὶ τιμω̑σιν, ὁ καὶ μωμεύμενος αἰνει̑.

—Theognis: 169.

In 1837 the Danish Royal Society of Sciences propounded, as subject for a prize competition, the question with which this treatise opens; and Schopenhauer, who was glad to seize the opportunity of becoming better known, prepared, and sent to Copenhagen, the earliest form of The Basis of Morality. In January, 1840, the work was pronounced unsuccessful, 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.{1}

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 it is easy to imagine with what ruffled, not to say, scandalized 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 conciliate; that we cannot feel much surprise at the official decision.

In the Judgment published by the Society three reasons are given for its unfavorable 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. As the third is alleged the unseemly language employed in connection with certain "summi philosophi" (Hegel and Fichte). These two objections 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 principle of Ethics: which he was required to do, unless the Society's Latin is borrowed from Νεϕαλοκοκκυγία. 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.{2} But the "metaphysicae et ethicae 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.{3}

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 fundamentals of his philosophy, as contained in Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, 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 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.){4} 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 tour 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 secret session in the breast, is examined, and eliminated; and Conscience is defined as the knowledge that we have of ourselves through our acts.

But if, so far, the result obtained is distinctly unfavorable 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.). He points out that the solution of this question is found in the doctrine of the coexistence of Liberty and Necessity: according to which the basis of our nature, the so-called Intelligible Character, that lies outside the forms attaching to phenomena, namely, Time, Space, and Causality, is transcendentally free; while the Empirical Character, together with the whole person, being, as a phenomenon, the transient objectivation of the Intelligible Character, under the laws of the principium individuationis, is strictly determined.{5} Part II. closes with a sufficiently amusing examination of Fichte (Chapter IX.). His proper function is shown to be that of a magnifying glass for Kant. By means of this powerful human lens we can see the monstrous shapes into which the Kantian pet creations are capable of developing. Thus we find the Categorical Imperative become a Despotic Imperative, the Absolute Ought grown into a fathomless inscrutable Είμαρμένη, etc.

With Part III. we reach the positive part of the work. Schopenhauer begins (Chapter I.) by emphasizing the necessity of finding a basis for Ethics that appeals, not to the intellect, but to the intuitive perception. Such (he says) can never be any artificial formula, which surely crumbles to powder beneath the rough touch of real life; rather must it be something springing out of the heart of things, and therefore lying at the root of man's nature. But is there, he asks (Chapter II.), after all, such a thing as natural morality? Is anything good ever done absolutely without an egoistic motive? The conclusion arrived at is that, although much may be, and has been, at all times, said in favor of the Skeptical View, and although this view is in fact true as regards the greater number of apparently unselfish acts, yet there can be no doubt that truly moral conduct does occur, that deeds of justice and loving-kindness are occasionally performed without the smallest hope of reward, or fear of punishment involved in their omission. The last paragraph of this chapter is important because it puts in the clearest light what, according to Schopenhauer, is the end of Ethics. Its aim, he says, is not to treat of that which people ought to do (for ought has no place except in theological Morals, whether explicit, or implicit) ; but to point out all the varied moral lines of human conduct; to explain them; and to trace them to their ultimate source. This definition, which assigns no educative function to Ethics, strictly agrees with the doctrine of the unchangeableness of character. (V. Chapter IX. of this Part.)

Our philosopher then proceeds to show (Chapter III.) that there are two fundamental antimoral incentives in man's nature: Egoism and Malice. Be it, however, here remarked that a still simpler classification would reduce these two to one. Malice may well be regarded as nothing but Egoism carried to its extreme, developed to gigantic proportions. It is a distinct source of gratification to certain natures to witness the suffering of another; because a diminution of the latter's capacity for action, whether effected by itself, or not, is regarded by an ego of this kind as an increase of its own power to do as it likes,—as an enhancement of its own glorification.

In Chapter IV. the ultimate test of truly moral conduct is explained to be the absence of all egoistic motivation; and in Chapters V.-VII., by a process of careful reasoning, every human act is traced to one of three original springs, namely, (1) Egoism, (2) Malice, and (3) Compassion ; or to a combination of (1) and (3), or (1) and (2).{6} Of these the third is shown to be the only counter-motive to the first and second, and in fact the sole source of the two cardinal virtues, justice and loving-kindness, which are explained as the manifestation of Compassion in a lower, and a higher, degree, respectively. In the course of the demonstration the question as to how far a lie is legitimate comes incidentally under discussion; as also the theory of Duty; duties being defined as actions, the simple omission of which constitutes a wrong. (Cf. Part II., Chapter III.)

The position now reached, namely, that Compassion is the one and only fount of true morality, because it is the sole non-egoistic source of action, is (says Schopenhauer) a strange paradox ; hence the testimony of experience and of universal human sentiment is appealed to, in confirmation of it, under nine different considerations (Chapter VIII.). They are as follows:—

(1) An imaginary case.

(2) Cruelty, which means the maximum deficiency in Compassion, is the mark of the deepest moral depravity. Therefore the real moral incentive must be Compassion.

(3) Compassion is the only thoroughly effective spring of moral conduct.

(4) Limitless Compassion for all living things is the surest and most certain token of a really good man.

(5) The evidence of separate matters of detail.

(6) Compassion is more easily discerned in its higher power; it is more obviously the root of loving-kindness than of justice.

(7) Compassion does not stop short with men; it includes all living beings.

(8) Considered simply from the empirical point of view, Compassion is the best possible antidote to Egoism, no less than the most soothing balsam for the world's inevitable suffering.

(9) Rousseau's testimony is quoted, as well as passages from the Panća-tantra, Pausanias, Lucian, Stobaeus, and Lessing; and reference is made to Chinese Ethics and Hindu customs.

Part III. closes (Chapter IX.) with an inquiry into the Ethical Difference of Character. The theory that this difference is innate and immutable is supported by numerous extracts from various writers of all periods, and illustrated in many ways. But all the evidence accumulated hardly amounts to more than so many hints and indications, and the matter (says Schopenhauer) was only satisfactorily explained by Kant's doctrine of the Intelligible and Empirical Character. (Cf. Part II., Chapter VIII.) According to this, the ethical difference between man and man is an original and ultimate datum, caused by the transcendentally free act of the Intelligible Character, that is, the Will, as Thing in itself, outside phenomena; the Empirical Character being, so to say, the reflection of the Intelligible, mirrored through the functions of our perceptive faculty, namely, Time, Space, and Causality. Hence the former, while manifested in plurality and difference of acts, yet necessarily always wears the same unchangeable features, inasmuch as it is but the appearance-form of the unity behind. If the reader asks why the essential constitution of the Thing in itself underlying the phenomenon is so enormously different in different individuals, it can only be said that our intellect, conditioned, as it is, by the laws of Causality, Space, and Time, has no power to deal with noumena, its range being limited to phenomena; and that therefore this question is one of those which have no conceivable answer. (Cf. Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vol. ii., chap. 50., Epiphilosophie.){7}

The discussion now terminated points to the conclusion that nine-tenths, or perhaps nineteen-twentieths, of what we do is, more or less, due to Egoism, conscious or unconscious; while acts of real morality, that is, of unselfish justice and pure loving-kindness (admitting that they occur) are to be attributed to Compassion, that is, the sense of suffering with another. Nor is the principle of Altruism new. It is as old as man himself. All the rare and sensitive natures in the world have given utterance to it, each in his own way. Like a golden thread it runs from the earliest Indian literature to George Eliot, to Tolstoy; and every day, for unnumbered ages, from youth to eld, from sire to son, in lowly dwellings and in princes' palaces, it has been unawares translated into action.

And if we may forecast the future from the past, it would appear that in all the stormy seas yet to be traversed by the human race, before its little day is spent, Compassion will ever be the surest guide to better things; and that the light of knowledge illuminating the path, whereby the world may become relatively happier, will always vary directly as man's susceptibility to its promptings: for Durch Mitleid wissend is not truer of Parsifal than of all other saviors.

In the fourth Part of the treatise Schopenhauer attempts the metaphysical explanation of Compassion, which for those, who still think that Metaphysics is something more than a pseudo-science of the past—like Alchemy or Astrology—will have special interest.

It should be observed (as is pointed out in our author's Preface to the first edition) that the line of thought followed does not belong to any particular metaphysical school, but to many; being in fact a principle at the root of the oldest systems in the world, and traceable in one form or another down to Kant. As in the dawn of history it was our own Aryan forefathers, who divined with subtle intuition the ideality of Time and Space; so in the fullness of the ages it was reserved for another Aryan of Scotch descent to formulate the same in exact language. Now, by the vast majority of men the ideality of the principium individuationis is undoubtedly either not consciously