Page:Philosophical Review Volume 4.djvu/94

78 The volume is made up of an Introduction (pp. 1-74) and three Parts (pp. 77-460). Part I. (pp. 77-246) is devoted to ethical theory, Part II. (pp. 249-338) to moral life, and Part III. (pp. 341-460) to the metaphysical implications of morality.

The introductory section has a very loose connection with what follows. It contains three chapters on the problem, the method, and the psychological basis of Ethics. "The task of Ethics," the author concludes, "is the discovery of the central principle of moral or spiritual life, as the task of Biology is the discovery of the central principle of physical life" (p. 20). But as Professor Seth contends (justly, I think) that we must have a Metaphysics as well as a Science of Ethics, the comparison with Biology is not happy; for if the biologist applied his method and ideal to the study of moral phenomena the result would be only a phenomenalistic science. The definition suggests a second difficulty. What right have we to assume that our "moral or spiritual life" can be expressed in the formula of a single principle? No doubt this is the tacit assumption of hedonist and of transcendentalist alike; but when I recall the different virtues of veracity, purity, benevolence, justice, etc., I find weighty grounds for doubting if the essence of all of them can be compressed into a single formula. At any rate it is only after the possibility of the unification has actually been demonstrated that one should assume that Ethics is required to effect it. On the face of it, Ethics is simply a reflective study of the facts of the moral life of man. These facts are written in the consciousness of the individual and on the records which the race has left of its inner life. On its scientific side, therefore, Ethics has both a psychological and an historical aspect. But the facts of our moral life as thus ascertained are found to have (if we listen to the voice, not of a few demonstrative agnostics, but of humanity in general) a reference not only to nature but to God, who is the source and ground both of the moral agent and of the world in which he is. It is perhaps the greatest merit of Professor Seth's book that he brings this fact into due prominence. In spite of the phenomenalistic trend of current ethical thinking, the fact remains that man is not only a natural but also a spiritual being, and that the norm of his living must have therefore a relation to God as well as to the physical universe in which his actions are unfolded. As Professor Seth admirably says, "An adequate ethical view is not reached, a satisfactory explanation of morality is not attained, so long as one separates morality either from nature or from God " (p. 31). This is the justification for that Metaphysics of Ethics on which Professor Seth lays so much stress.