The intuitive theory of morality has had no greater success than utilitarianism. Even if the sentiment of society were a true basis of moral conduct, it fails in actual practice. On the other hand, although utility is the object of all morality, it is in most cases so difficult to determine what is really useful, that utilitarianism breaks down as the foundation of morality.
We must look elsewhere for principles which can guide us towards right conduct.
II
MORALITY AND HUMAN NATURE
Attempts to found morality on the laws of human nature—Kant’s theory of moral obligation—Some criticisms of the Kantian theory—Moral conduct must be guided by reason
Even in antiquity, there were efforts to find a basis for morality other than the precepts of religion based on revelation, but the failure of such attempts has long been admitted. In the first chapter of The Nature of Man, I described such efforts to find a basis for morality in human nature itself. The Epicureans and the Stoics, although their doctrines were opposed, each claimed to set out from human nature. The principle is too vague for practical use, as human nature can be interpreted in very different fashions.
When several attempts to find a rational basis for morality had failed, Kant’s theory appeared and was hailed by many as a real advance. None the less, it has not met with general approval and may be taken as a supreme instance of the failure to solve the great problem of morality by reason. I do not wish to deal with it at length, but a review of its main outlines is pertinent to my argument.
According to Kant, morality cannot be founded on the feeling of sympathy, nor can it have as its object the happiness of men. Nature would have been an unskilful workman were her object the happiness of human beings, for many lower animals have much more happiness. An inner law is the force compelling us to morality, and without that we should have to seek our guide in happiness.
Kant’s doctrine is an intuitive theory of morality. It is based neither on sympathy nor on any inherent charity, which would make us covet happiness for our fellows, but solely on the consciousness of duty. Kant thought that the action of a man who wished to do good to his fellows was devoid of merit. Conduct was moral only in so far as it was obedience to the inner sense of duty. Schiller’s epigram has thrown into relief this part of the great philosopher’s theory, “When I take pleasure in doing good to my neighbour, I am uneasy, as I fear that I have been lacking in virtue.”