conceived as _formal_ or _material._ The question, already difficult in
itself, has become yet more difficult, so as almost to cause despair
of its solution, owing to the fact that those terms, "formal" and
"material," are understood (as often happens in philosophy) in a double
sense. Hence, those who win assent to their thesis as to the formality
of the ethical principle are afterwards wont to avail themselves of
this assent, in order stealthily to introduce another thesis, which,
although it be also beneath the banner of the "formal," yet has nothing
to do with the first and is as false as that is true. And since those
who maintain the material principle do the same thing, both alike
come to expose their flanks to one another's blows. In the process of
unravelling this tangled skein, we shall begin by giving to those two
words the meaning that they usually bear in philosophical terminology,
meaning by "formal" the universal and by "material" the contingent. And
in this signification we affirm, above all, that the principle of Ethic
is _formal_ and certainly not _material._
[Sidenote: _The ethical principle as formal (universal) and not
material (contingent)._]
Were it material, it would express itself by means of propositions
indicating a single volition or a group of single volitions as the true
and proper essence of the moral volition; and the moral activity would
consist of a determinate action or of a determinate group of actions.
But the moral act is always that which surpasses the single or the
groups of singles: to will and to effect the single and the series of
singles as such, does not appertain to the ethical, but to the merely
economic form. He who loves things for things' sake (be they such, and
as many as you will, of this or that kind, one, many, infinite) does
not yet love the universal, which is everywhere, and is not exhausted
in any particular thing, nor in any number of things, however immense.
[Sidenote: _Reduction of material to utilitarian Ethic._]
If we posit a material principle for Ethic, we relapse as a
consequence into _utilitarianism,_ from which we thought we had
escaped; because, after having asserted the universal, it is now
determined, either as a single or (which amounts to the same thing) as
a feigned universal, a simply general concept of group or series. This
vicissitude, however, presents itself in every sphere of philosophy:
when the universal and formal principle of that sphere is materialized,
we return to the sphere immediately, below it. For example, an
esthetic that posits as its principle certain single forms of art,
thus substituting matter for form, relapses from art to life lived,
which is the condition that precedes art and upon which art raises
itself in order to intuite and to dominate life. Material Ethic has
therefore been with reason discredited as heteronomous and utilitarian.
Not indeed that it is so directly and admits itself so to be: on
the contrary, it professes to be anti-utilitarian and does nothing
directly, save to point to a given object as the true content of
morality. But that object, being single, implies a merely utilitarian
volition; and material Ethic is utilitarian, because, whatever it may
do or say, it is logically reducible to utilitarianism.
[Sidenote: _Rejection of material principles._]
The rejection of all material character from the ethical principle
is of the greatest importance, for it frees Ethic from a long series
of concepts, each one of which has been proposed in turn as the true
ethical principle, and several still find many supporters, both in
ordinary thought and in treatises called scientific. For us, those
concepts should not be examined comparatively, so as to arrive at
preferring the one to the other, or a new one of the same type to all
the concepts previously enunciated; but they are all false, for one and
the same reason, as any other that may in future be excogitated will be
false, if it contain in it anything material.
[Sidenote: _Benevolence, love, altruism, etc.; and critique of them._]
A first group of such material principles is found in relation to
the general concept of an action, directed toward the welfare of
individuals, other than the individual acting. Morality (they say)
is _sacrifice of self, benevolence, love, altruism, compassion,
humanitarianism,_ or simply _naturalism_ of the Franciscan sort,
which commands us to respect, protect, and love the animals also,
since they too are God's creatures (brother Wolf, sister Fox). Such
formulæ, especially those of _benevolence and altruism,_ have been and
continue to be successful; and hardly a doubt is harboured but that
they determine in the most complete and satisfactory manner the proper
principle of morality. But in truth _others,_ as individuals, have no
rights that I too do not possess as an individual: I am another for
the other, and he is an I for himself; and if each one provided for
the good of others, neglecting and trampling upon his own good, the
result would be perfectly identical to what would happen, were each one
to provide for himself without concern for others. Morality demands
the sacrifice of me for the universal end, but of me only in my merely
individual ends; and, therefore, in this case, of me as of others. It
has no particular animosity against me, so as to wish to sacrifice me
at all costs to others. We must be severe, not only with ourselves, but
with others also; exigent, not only with ourselves, but with others
also; and so, on the contrary, benevolent not only toward others,
but also toward ourselves; compassionate, not only toward others,
but also towards this instrument of labour that we carry about with
us and of which we sometimes demand too much; that is, our empirical
individuality. Reality is neither democratic nor aristocratic, but
both together; it abhors the privilege of some over others as much as
that equality, according to which each one must have the same value
as the other at every moment. All are in turn masters and servants;
worthy of respect as bearers and representatives of good, worthy of
punishment and reprehension as clouding and impeding the good. Morality
never considers individuals in themselves, but always in their relation
to the universal; and in this respect there is no one who does not
deserve to be saved or to be suppressed; there is no animal or other
being of any kind that should not now be favoured in its existence,
now annihilated. No individual is treated as an _end,_ but all as
_means_ for universal morality; and they only obtain the dignity of
ends, in so far as they are means for universal morality. The rights of
animals have been written for and against; but in truth, a lamb has now
the duty of being slaughtered, now the right of being left in peace,
according to circumstances; in the same way that a man has now the
right to go for a walk with his friends and to sing serenades beneath
the windows of fair ladies, now the duty of putting on a uniform and
of betaking himself beneath the walls of a citadel, where he will be
blown in pieces by the enemy's grape-shot. Altruism is as insipid as
egoism, and is reducible at bottom to egoism; in much the same way as
sensual love, which has justly been called "egoism for two." Indeed,
why should we be ready to sacrifice ourselves for others, and to
promote their desire in every case and in spite of everything? For what
reason, save for the blind and irrational attachment to them which
makes a man throw away his life or descend to abjection for a wicked
woman furiously loved, suffer every shame and torment for an unworthy
son, or yield to the impulses of sympathy inspired by an individual?
This blind and irrational attachment to others is at bottom attachment
to ourselves, to our nerves, to our fancies, to our convenience, to our
habits. It is utility, not morality; for morality wills us to be ready
to separate ourselves from others as from ourselves, when the occasion
arises, to leave wives and sons and brothers, and follow duty which
transcends them all. "Thou only, O ideal, art true,..." or rather, by
means of the ideal and of the universal, all things are true; without
the ideal, there is not one of them that does not become false, as
there is not an organism that does not become vile clay, when abandoned
by life.
[Sidenote: _Social organism, State, interest of the race, etc. Critique
of them._]
There is another group of material principles which seems to surpass
individuals, because it makes morality to consist of promoting either
so-called _laws of nature_ or so-called _institutions._ Of such kind
are those that place morality in the service of the _social organism
and of the State, or of the interest of the Species and of Life_ (this
being understood as animal life or very near to animality). But if it
seem that contingent facts are thus escaped, that is not really so.
For none of these concepts expresses the universality of the real, but
this or that group of its particular manifestations: the life called
social or political, this or that animal species, this or that vital
manifestation. And none of these facts can be ethically willed without
exceptions. The moral man sacrifices the State to the Church, or the
Church to the State, atrophies certain organs and suppresses certain
vital functions for universal ends, or for the ends of what is called
civilization; he defends, preserves and increases certain aptitudes
of the human race, but lets others disappear or modifies them, always
adapting the interest of the species to that of the ideal. Were he to
do otherwise, he would again be substituting utility for morality,
his immediate affection for certain things or for certain single and
individual facts, to the affection for them that should always be
_mediated,_ that is to say, mediated by the universal.
[Sidenote: _Material religious principles. Critique of them._]
A third group of material principles, called religious, which make
morality to consist of conforming to the will of God and of the
gods, is not intrinsically different from these. Where the idea of
the transcendental and of religious mystery is introduced, there is
darkness; and anything can be put into darkness. In the first place,
nothing but darkness itself can be put there, and in this case the
religious solution is agnosticism, confession of ignorance, such as
we have hitherto treated, in criticizing theological utilitarianism
or abstract ethical rigorism, which, by means of its insoluble
contradictions, also leads to the idea of God and of mystery. But one's
own will, caprice and individual interests can also be put there;
and then religion becomes attachment to a being or to an order of
beings, which, though they be imaginary, are not for that reason less
individual; attachment to them is love or fear, sympathy or fear of
the evil they can do, and tendency to avoid it by propitiation with
prayers, adulation, gifts, services, worship. Religious principles,
then, understood as material principles, also become converted, as all
know, and we may add, know all too well, into utilitarian principles;
because, through intently fixing the gaze upon this aspect of religion,
they have forgotten to look at others more important and certainly more
noble.
[Sidenote: _Formal principle as affirmation of a merely logical
exigency._]
The ethical principle is not adequately expressed, either by the
_altruistic_ concept, or by that of _natural formations_ and of
_institutions,_ or by that of the _gods;_ because all of these are
general concepts, or sometimes merely individual representations; they
are certainly not universal concepts. And by the necessity of the
universal and the insufficiency of the merely general and individual,
the ethical principle must be _formal_ and not _material._ However (and
here we enter into the new meaning of this word and into the new debate
announced), the formal ethical principle has likewise been understood
as not susceptible of extension beyond the enunciation of the character
of universality, which the principle itself should possess. Its formula
has seemed to be nothing but that of a _universal law,_ to which all
men can conform in complete harmony among themselves; of _respect
towards all beings,_ in the degree that appertains to each, of that
which satisfies _the exigencies of reason and of conscience,_ and so
on. Now the formality claimed by this and similar formulæ has nothing
to do with the formality first claimed; and since in the preceding
debate we took the side of those who maintain formal as against
material Ethic, so here we must defend material against formal Ethic;
or better, an Ethic that is not material against an Ethic that is not
formal, save in the pretentions of those who thus baptize it.
[Sidenote: _Critique of a formal ethic in this sense: tautologism._]
What does the formality of Ethic mean in the new sense? Nothing
but this: that it is not necessary to inquire _what is the ethical
principle,_ but that we must be satisfied with saying that _whatever
it be, it must be universal._ But that it must be universal is a
proposition which belongs, not to Ethic, but to Logic; the principles
of all philosophical sciences must possess the character of
universality, the logical as the æsthetic, the principle of Ethic as
that of Economic, the moral categoric imperative as the utilitarian
categoric. Thus the thesis of formality in the new meaning is reduced
to placing at the head of Ethic, not the ethical principle, _but the
logical exigency of the ethical principle,_ in the same way that a
similar claim in Æsthetic would result in placing at the head of
that science, not the formal æsthetic principle, as for example,
Intuition-expression, but a formal æsthetic principle, the claim for
a law, so made that no form of beauty could ever be excluded from
it. Instead of constructing the science, the affirmation of logical
necessity, which that construction must obey, is infinitely repeated;
but the thesis of formality in the new sense would be better called the
thesis of _tautologism._
[Sidenote: _Tautological principles: ideal, chief good, duty, etc., and
critique of them._]
Besides the formulæ to which we have referred, namely those of the
_categoric imperative, of the universal law, of the respect for being,
of the rational and of conscience,_ the formulæ of the _chief good,
of duty (or of law), of the ideal, of true pleasure, of constant
pleasure, of spiritual pleasure, of personal dignity, of self-esteem,
of the just mean, of harmony, of proportion, of justice, of perfection,
of following nature,_ and so on, also belong to the tautological
principles of Ethic; they are all tautologies, because they do not
determine to what object those logical claims are applicable. To ask
what is the form of will that produces a _constant, spiritual and
true_ pleasure, which makes _perfect, gives self-esteem, satisfies our
conscience, strikes the just mean,_ answers to what _ought_ to be done,
attains to _the supreme good,_ and so on, is tantamount to asking,
_What is the ethical form?_ This is precisely what must be answered,
if we do not wish to fall into tautology, and the reply cannot be the
question itself.
[Sidenote: _Tautological meaning of certain formulæ, material in
appearance._]
And it is convenient to note here that many of the formulæ that
we have criticized as belonging to material Ethic, have also been
frequently-employed as tautological formulæ, that is to say, as symbols
and metaphors of the ethical truth to be determined. The _others,_ of
which altruism speaks, are at bottom not others as physically distinct
from us, but others in an ideal sense, that is, as duty surpassing
the empirical ego; _God,_ of which religious Ethic speaks, is that
indeterminate concept, that logical exigency, which is also called the
_categoric imperative; the State or Life_ that one pledges oneself
to serve is not this or that State, this or that particular form of
life, but the symbol of the ideal; the _nature_ to be followed is that
nature, or ethical principle within us, which the speculative reason
must determine. Thus do material principles often progress, ceasing
to be such, in order to become tautological, that is, abandoning the
possession of undue determination, owing to the consciousness of a
want, of a lacuna to be filled.
[Sidenote: _Conversion of tautological Ethic into material and
utilitarian Ethic._]
The evil is that tautologism inevitably returns to that undue
possession, because, imagining that it has established that ethical
principle which it has not established at all, and that it has finally
constructed Ethic, of which it has not even laid the foundations, it
sets to work to explain moral and concrete facts by means of that
empty form. The consequence of this is that utilitarian motives, as
usual, fill the empty space. Why should we not violate a deposit that
has been entrusted to us? Perhaps because (as they say) the moral law
is a universal law? That does not suffice. Respect for the deposit
cannot be deduced from this principle, for a universal law is equally
thinkable, according to which is deduced in certain cases a respect for
the deposit and in certain other cases the contrary. This then is the
fact: that to restore a deposit confided to us may sometimes happen to
be a bad action, as, for instance, to restore the weapon entrusted to
us, when he who claims it intends to commit suicide or to assassinate.
Thus it happens that not knowing how to put an end to the controversy
in virtue of the true ethical principle, and wishing nevertheless in
some way to use that empty formula, it comes to be filled with the only
principle possessed, namely the utilitarian; and the reason given for
respecting the deposit is said to be the desirability of respecting for
engagements, for the ends of the individual, failing which (it will
be said) no business would thenceforth be effected and the world of
affairs would languish.
[Sidenote: _In what sense Ethic should be formal and in what other
sense material._]
_Formal_ Ethic, in the new sense, or as it would be better called,
tautological Ethic, might be called _formalistic,_ owing to its thus
falling back into material, heteronomous and utilitarian Ethic, since
_formalism_ here (as in Æsthetic and Logic) is the caricature of
formality, and almost a sort of materiality. In maintaining _formal_
Ethic we do not wish that it should be _formalistic_; that is, that it
should be again covertly material. And we wish that formal Ethic should
also be material, always understanding by this that it must give, not
the mere logical condition of the ethical principle, but _this ethical
principle itself_ in its concreteness, determining what moral volition
is in its reality.
II
THE ETHICAL FORM AS ACTUATION OF THE SPIRIT IN UNIVERSAL
[Sidenote: _Tautological Ethic and its connection with Philosophy,
either partial or discontinuous._]
If the strange idea of an ethical principle that should be formal,
in the sense of its not being known exactly what it is and how it is
justified, has ever been able to arise, this is due to two erroneous
philosophical conceptions, of which one can be called _partial,_ the
other _discontinuous_ philosophy. According to the first conception,
man is capable of knowing something of reality, certainly, but not
all: he perceives and arranges the data of experience by means of the
categories, but he is aware of the limitation of his thought and of the
impossibility of attaining to the heart of the real, which he does, it
is true, end by attaining in a certain way, but only with the heart,
not with thought. This being stated, and coming to the case of Ethic,
man hears the voice of conscience in himself, the command of the moral
law; he cannot think of any sophism to escape it: but precisely what
that law is, he is unable to say; the idea of a divine ordinance of
the world which presents itself to his spirit, may also be affirmed by
the heart, but never by thought. The second conception is confounded
by some thinkers with the first and becomes partial philosophy or
agnosticism; but if we observe closely, it is distinct from the other.
For here it is not actually asserted that the foundation of morality
is unknowable, but it is said to be unknowable in the circle of Ethic,
or that such knowledge goes beyond that circle. Ethic establishes the
moral law, deduces or arranges beneath it ethical precepts and by means
of them judges single actions. Ethic is ignorant as to whether that
law really exists, or what may be its precise universal content. It
hands this problem over to Metaphysic, or to general Philosophy, which
solves it in its own way, or is presumed to be capable of solving it.
In this conception, then, there arises a question as to competence
and hierarchy between thought and thought, between particular and
general philosophy; whereas, in the former, is affirmed the absolute
incompetence of thought.
[Sidenote: _Rejection of both these conceptions._]
But we do not run the risk of colliding with the obstacle placed
before us with these philosophical views, because we have constantly
rejected them both throughout the whole of our exposition of the
Philosophy of the spirit and have demonstrated their falsity. Partial
Philosophy is a contradictory concept: thought either thinks all
or nothing; and if it had a limit it would have it as thought and
therefore as surpassed. Whoso admits something unknowable, declares
everything unknowable, and inevitably falls into total scepticism. Nor
is the idea of a discontinuous philosophy divided into a whole and
its parts, with the whole outside the parts and the parts outside the
whole less inconceivable; so that, while Ethic is being studied, the
whole (complete Philosophy) seems problematical; and a part (Ethic)
can be known to some extent without knowing the whole (the whole
of Philosophy). This is a false view, ultimately derived from the
empirical sciences, in which it is possible to apprehend one order
of phenomena independently of the others; and to apprehend phenomena
without explicitly posing or by dismissing to another occasion the
philosophical problem as to their truth. Philosophy is a circle and a
unity and every point of it is intelligible only in relation to all the
others. The didascalic convenience of exposing a group of philosophical
problems separately from others--or also (if it please others, as
it has not pleased us) of dividing the exposition into particular
philosophical sciences, and into general Philosophy (also called
Metaphysic)--should not lead to the misconception that the indivisible
is really being divided. The whole of Philosophy is at once enunciated
with the first philosophical proposition; and the others that come
after will all be nothing but explanations of the first.
[Sidenote: _The ethical form as volition of the universal._]
Therefore, since we have never denied faith to thought, nor broken in
pieces the unity of Philosophy, we have no secret to reveal at this
point; not even a poor secret, like the exponents of discontinuous
Philosophy, who solemnly make known at the end what they have assumed
from the beginning. Our formal ethical principle is never empty form
that must only now be filled with a content. It is full form, form
in the philosophical and universal sense, which is also content and
therefore universal content. We have not restricted ourselves to
defining the ethical form as universal form, which would have resulted
in tautologism; but we have defined it _volition of the universal,_
thus distinguishing it from the economic form, which is simply volition
of the individual. And if we now ask ourselves what is the universal,
we must reply that the answer has already been given, and that whoever
has not yet understood, whoever indeed has not understood it for some
time, will never understand it. The universal has been the object of
all our Philosophy of the Spirit, and we have always had to keep it
before our eyes, in studying, not only the practical function, but
any other function of the spirit; just as we cannot have the idea
of the branch of a tree without the idea of the trunk from which it
springs and without which there would not be the branch of a tree. That
concept, then, is not a _deus ex machina_ to appear unexpectedly at the
end of the play and hastily bring it to a conclusion, but the force
that has animated it from the first to the last scene.
[Sidenote: _The universal as the Spirit (Reality, Liberty, etc.)._]