In view of the above distinctions, there can be no moral evil in desires for things which it would be wrong to choose, except as these desires are the result of previous wrong choices.[7]
It has been shown that the principle of habit renders it more and more easy and agreeable to regulate our choices by the rules of rectitude. The habit of sacrificing personal gratification to the rule of duty may be so cultivated that what at first was difficult, and involved a painful struggle, becomes easy. It is possible so to cultivate such habits that our highest desires, and the dictates of reason and conscience, shall continually be more and more coincident.
We can conceive of newly-created beings as placed in such circumstances that, for a considerable period, all their strongest desires may be coincident with the best good of themselves and of others, so that there can be no opportunity to practice self-control in regulating their desires by the rules of rectitude. In such a case, [pg 137] while acting simply from impulse, without reference to rule, they would always act right, and yet they would form no habits of self-control, and thus would be liable to fail at the first temptation where their strongest desire conflicted with the known law of rectitude.
The preceding statements are made in order to arrive at correct and discriminating definitions of certain fundamental terms on which the whole question of the “depraved nature” of the human mind will be found to turn.
Right in Tendency and Right in Motive.
Mankind in all ages and in all languages speak of certain acts as right or wrong in reference to their tendency or their effect on human happiness, and without reference to the intention of the author. Thus they affirm that the stealing and selling of men is wrong, whatever may be the motives of the slave trader.
Again, they speak of acts as right or wrong in reference to the motive or intention of the author. Thus they say a man who sacrificed his wealth and reputation, rather than to violate his conscience, acted right as to motive, although he was mistaken in his views of duty, so that his act, as it respects its tendency, may have been wrong.
Right General Purpose.
Again, it has been shown that a man may form a general purpose to act right in obeying all the laws of God as discoverable by reason or revelation. This general purpose may be a quiet, abiding principle, so as to regulate the thoughts and emotions, and may control [pg 138] most of the specific choices of a whole succeeding life. The main purpose, or chief end of such a man is to bring all his thoughts, words, and actions into perfect agreement with the rules of rectitude. In reference to this and his consequent conduct, his would be denominated a virtuous character.
No one will deny that this is a correct statement of the use of terms by mankind in every-day life. Thus then we have gained the following definitions as established, not by metaphysicians and theologians, but by the people.