Page:Ferrier Works vol 2 1888 LECTURES IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY.pdf/260

Rh 26. But although man comes into the world thus naturally equipped, he finds there much that is at variance with these natural provisions. He finds established in society a code of morality which is by no means in accordance with what we have called the ethics of nature. By the ethics of nature man is bound to regard his own interests as paramount, and to look after these alone; by the ethics of society he is called upon to respect the interests of others, as well as to abridge or sacrifice his own pleasures, and to lay a restraint on his self-indulgent appetites. These new regulations square but badly with the injunctions laid upon him by nature. And the purport of the Sophistical teaching was, I conceive, to point out the inconsistency, without offering any adequate solution. Their object was to stir up inquiry, and as a preliminary to this, it was necessary to induce perplexity of mind. Doubts and difficulties must present themselves before any clearness of thought can be attained. These doubts and difficulties and contradictions were evolved by the argumentative exercitations of the Sophists; and I conceive that their exhibition was absolutely essential to the progress of philosophy, and as a step to something better. Let us honour and not disparage the Sophists for having been at the pains to throw these embarrassments (what the Greeks called ) in the way of thinking men. They argued that the morals of nature were opposed in much to the morals of convention, that the morals of nature were