St Ignatius College - Ignatian Yearbook (San Francisco, CA)

Page 32 text:

84 IGNATIAN I why men must do right and avoid wrong. Why cannot I violate the duties of others, if I care to? Well, you act unreasonably, that's all. And if I chose to act unreasonably, what then ? There's no hope for you then I guess, laughed back Fitzgibbon. But look here, the intellect does not originate but rep- resents objects. Hence virtue and vice must be something extrinsic to it, You claim this lies in the fact that some acts are useful in promoting the good of the community and others detrimental. That is all very logical in the cases like the one you mentioned of murder, but let us consider suicide. What duty to society does a suicide violate? Often he con- fers a benefit on mankind by destroying himself and yet you admit that such a man is doing wrong. The same objection applies to private vices which though undoubtedly wrong, nevertheless do not harm society as such. The trouble with you is that you confuse the eifect with the cause. The cause of good is not that which is useful, although its effect may be that it promotes the common good. Acts are 'not good because they are useful, but useful because they are good. It is in this confusion of cause and effect that the main flaw of your system of ethics consists. Y Well what is the answer then ? put in Handlos rather angrily. . That's what I'm asking you, said Smith, and smiling he rose and started toward the billiard room., vffrxafxscwrvf, 5 About a week later I met young Smith and was intro- duced by a friend of mine. As soon as the occasion offered, I broached the subject of the controversy. He was about to pass the matter over with a laugh, but my curiosity had been aroused and I asked him if he would mind giving me his opinion in the matter. What I tell you,', he answered, will not be my opinion in the sense you mean. People are too apt to think morality is a matter of personal opinion and consequently they disre-

Page 31 text:

WHY MUST I BE MORAL? 83 murder, is that it might cause mental anguish to the mur- derer. That may be all very true when it comes to cold logic, but taking experience as a criterion, it strikes me that many and many a time the thought of consequent pleasure and pain prevent a man from commiting a crime, remarked Handlos, somewhat decisively. I'm only too willing to grant that these considerations are strong factors in deterring a man from evil, but they are not obligatory. My question is 'Why must I be moral ?' not 'what influences my decisions ?' Moreover pleasure and pain are, as you just stated, consequent upon an act, hence before you can tell whether an act is good or bad you must perform it and then if it causes you pleasure you know it was good, if it causes you pain it was bad. This is evidently absurd. No, Handlos, 'hedonism' is no answer to my question. An elderly gentleman who had taken no part in the dis- cussion thus far, suggested a new solution: While,I agree that we must follow the dictates of reason and that we are infiuenced by personal pain and pleasure, yet I think that the solution is to be found in the fact that man is a social animal, and that in consequence of that fact, he is bound to respect the common good of the community and not to infringe upon the duties which he owes to his fellow men. Thus in the oft- repeated example of murder, the criminal is violating the right of a fellow man to his life and thus he commits a wrong. Since we are allowed the protection of society we are necessarily obliged to respect the rights of the individuals living in society. What is useful for promoting the common weal is therefore the good, what obstructs its advancement is evil. Your system is far more humane than the preceding one, answered Smith, since it substitutes altruism for ego- ism. Yet it lies open to many objections. First of all it does not answer my question. No explanation advanced thus far explains to me why I am obliged to keep the moral law. Your doctrines merely state what is right and wrong, not

Page 33 text:

WHY MUST I BE 'MORAL? . 85 gard the fact that virtue and vice are objective realities and not subjective feelings. That was one of the great faults with the men I was arguing with. They tried to explain morality by instinct, pleasure, usefulness, etc., and entirely neglected the fact that there was something in the act com- mitted that influenced its goodness or badness. However the principal reason I asked that seeming simple question was be- cause I knew all those men were atheists. What's atheism got to do with it? I asked. Just this. Unless you acknowledge a God, you can have no such a thing as morality. That's a very broad statement to make, I replied. Granted: but nevertheless it is true. The reason is briefly this: Being moral is nothing but keeping the moral law. Now there can be no such thing as a law without a lawgiverg' Hence, when we admit a law, we implicitly aflirm the existence of someone who has promulgated it. This per- son can be either man or God. If man, he may be taken singly or collectively. If singly, each individual could for- mulate his own particular code of ethics, and the result would be a chaos of conflicting virtues and vices, man could in this supposition violate and change the moral order at will, causing right to be wrong, and vice versa, just as it pleased his fancy. This is plainly absurd, for the law of morality is immutable. Nor can this lawgiver be the collective man or society, for a lawgiver must be a superior, and since all men are equal, where could society receive its authority? The only solution therefore of the identity of the imposer of the moral law is to admit a supernatural person, in other words, God. Now, once having conceded that God imposes morality on us, the answer to my question is simple. A law without obligation is in fact no law. Since God is a perfect Being, I-Ie necessarily obliges us to obey His decrees, for it is un- reasonable to make a law and not impose an obligation on us to fulfill it. Hence the answer to my question 'Why must I be moral,' is simply this: 'I must obey the Divine law.'