Our analysis will be concerned with moral concepts formed by the civilised mind. Whilst the most representative of English terms for moral estimates have equivalents in the other European languages, I do not take upon myself to decide to what extent they have equivalents in non-European tongues. That all existing peoples, even the very lowest, have moral emotions is as certain as that they have customs, and there can be no doubt that they give expression to those emotions in their speech. But it is another question how far their emotions have led to such generalisations as are implied in moral concepts. Concerning the Fuegians M. Hyades observes, “Les idées abstraites sont chez eux à peu près nulles. Il est difficile de définir exactement ce qu’ils appellent un homme bon et un homme méchant; mais à coup sûr ils n’ont pas la notion de ce qui est bon ou mauvais, abstraction faite de l’individu ou de l’objet auquel ils appliqueraient l’un ou l’autre de ces attributs.”[1] The language of the Californian Karok, though rich in its vocabulary, is said to possess no equivalent for “virtue.”[2] In the aboriginal tongues of the highlanders of Central India “there seem to be no expressions for abstract ideas, the few such which they possess being derived from the Hindí….. The nomenclature of religious ceremony, of moral qualities, and of nearly all the arts of life they possess, are all Hindí.”[3] On a strict examination of the language of the Tonga Islanders, Mariner could discover “no words essentially expressive of some of the higher qualities of human merit, as virtue, justice, humanity; nor of the contrary, as vice, injustice, cruelty, &c. They have indeed expressions for these ideas,” he adds, but these expressions “are equally applicable to other things. To express a virtuous or good man, they would say, tangata lillé, a good man, or tangata loto lillé, a man with a good mind; but the word lillé, good (unlike our word virtuous), is equally applicable to an axe, canoe, or anything else.”[4] Of the Australian natives about Botany Bay and Port Jackson Collins wrote, “That they have ideas of a distinction between good and bad is evident from their having terms in their language significant of these qualities.” A fish of which they never ate, was wee-re, or bad, whereas the kangaroo was bood-yer-re, or good; and these expressions were used not only for qualities which they perceived by their senses, but for all kinds of badness and goodness, and were the only terms they had for wrong and right. “Their enemies were wee-re; their friends bood-yer-re. On our speaking of cannibalism, they expressed great horror at the mention, and said it was wee-re. On seeing any of our people punished or reproved for ill-treating them, they expressed their approbation, and said it was bood-yer-re, it was right.”[5]
[1] Hyades and Deniker, Mission scientifique du Cap Horn, vii. 251.
[2] Powers, Tribes of California, p. 22.
[3] Forsyth, Highlands of Central India, p. 139.
[4] Mariner, Natives of the Tonga Islands, ii. 147 sq.
[5] Collins, English Colony in New South Wales, i. 548 sq.
Considering, moreover, that even the European languages make use of such general terms as “good” and “bad” for the purpose of expressing moral qualities, it seems likely that, originally, moral concepts were not clearly differentiated from other more comprehensive generalisations, and that they assumed a more definite shape only by slow degrees. At the same time we must not expect to find the beginning of this process reflected in the vocabularies of languages. There is every reason to believe that a savage practically distinguishes between the “badness” of a man and the “badness” of a piece of food, although he may form no clear idea of the distinction. As Professor Wundt observes, “the phenomena of language do not admit of direct translation back again into ethical processes: the ideas themselves are different from their vehicles of expression, and here as everywhere the external mark is later than the internal act for which it stands.”[6] Language is a rough generaliser; even superficial resemblance between different phenomena often suffices to establish linguistic identity between them. Compare the rightness of a line with the rightness of conduct, the wrongness of an opinion with the wrongness of an act. And notice the different significations given to the verb “ought” in the following sentences:—“They ought to be in town by this time, as the train left Paris last night”; “If you wish to be healthy you ought to rise early”; “You ought always to speak the truth.” Though it may be shown that in these statements the predicate “ought” signifies something which they all have in common—the reference to a rule,[7]—we must by no means assume that this constitutes the essence of the moral “ought,” or gives us the clue to its origin.
[6] Wundt, Ethik, p. 36 (English translation, p. 44).
[7] Cf. Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, p. 343 sq.
Discarding all questions of etymology as irrelevant to our subject,[8] we shall, in our analysis of moral concepts, endeavour to fix the true import of each concept by examining how, and under what circumstances, the term expressing it is generally applied. We shall restrict ourselves to the principal, typical terms which are used as predicates in moral judgments. If we succeed in proving that they are all fundamentally derived from either moral indignation or moral approval, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the origin of the rest.