[49] The same argument is put in a more guarded, and, I think, unexceptionable form by Hutcheson. It is perhaps more remarkable that Hume, too, shares Butler’s view which he expresses almost in the language of the famous sermons. “There are,” he says, “bodily wants or appetites, acknowledged by every one, which necessarily precede all sensual enjoyment, and carry us directly to seek possession of the object. Thus hunger and thirst have eating and drinking for their end: and from the gratification of these primary appetites arises a pleasure, which may become the object of another species of inclination that is secondary and interested.” Hence Hume finds that “the hypothesis which allows of a disinterested benevolence, distinct from self-love,” is “conformable to the analogy of nature.” See Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals (Appendix II.).
[50] Some further discussion of it will be found in the [note] at the end of the chapter.
[51] Professor J. S. Mackenzie, in his Manual of Ethics (3rd edition, Book i. chap. ii. note), arguing for the universal painfulness of desire, urges that the so-called “pleasures of pursuit” are really pleasures of “progressive attainment”; what causes pleasure being the series of partial attainments that precede the final attainment. There seems to me much truth in this view, as regards some forms of pursuit; but in other cases I can find nothing deserving the name in the course of the pursuit: the prominent element of the pleasure seems to be clearly the reflex of eager and hopeful, perhaps consciously skilful, activity. E.g. this is often the case in the pursuit of truth, scientific or historical. I have spent most pleasant hours in hunting for evidence in favour of a conjecture that had occurred to me as a possible solution of a difficult historical question, without any “progressive attainment” at all, as I found no evidence of any importance: but the pleasure had none the less been real, at any rate in the earlier part of the pursuit. Or take the common experience of deer-stalking, or the struggle for victory in an evenly balanced game of chess, or a prolonged race in which no competitor gains on the others till near the end. I find nothing like “progressive attainment” in these cases.
But even granting Mr. Mackenzie’s view to be more widely applicable than I think it, the question it deals with seems to me in the main irrelevant to the issue that I am now discussing: since it remains true that the presence of antecedent desire is an essential condition of the pleasures of attainment—whether “progressive” or “catastrophic”—and that the desire is not itself perceptibly painful.
[52] Lecky, Hist. of European Morals, Introduction.
[53] I must ask the reader to distinguish carefully the question discussed in this chapter, which relates to the objects of desires and aversions, from the different question whether the causes of these impulses are always to be found in antecedent experiences of pleasure and pain. The bearing of this latter question on Ethics, though not unimportant, is manifestly more indirect than that of the question here dealt with: and it will be convenient to postpone it till a later stage of the discussion. Cf. post, Book ii. chap. vi. § [2], and Book iv. chap. iv. § [1].
[54] I have thought it expedient to exclude the Kantian conception of Free Will from the scope of the discussion in this chapter, partly on account of the confusion mentioned in the text; partly because it depends on the conception of a causality not subject to time-conditions, which appears to me altogether untenable, while it does not fall within the plan of the present treatise to discuss it. But considering the widespread influence of Kantian theory on current ethical thought, I have thought it desirable to give a brief discussion of his conception of Free Will in an Appendix ([I.]).
[55] Elements of Morality, Book i. chap. ii. At the same time, it is also true—as I afterwards say—that we sometimes identify ourselves with passion or appetite in conscious conflict with reason: and then the rule of reason is apt to appear an external constraint, and obedience to it a servitude, if not a slavery.
[56] The difficulty which Socrates and the Socratic schools had in conceiving a man to choose deliberately what he knows to be bad for him—a difficulty which drives Aristotle into real Determinism in his account of purposed action, even while he is expressly maintaining the “voluntariness” and “responsibility” of vice—seems to be much reduced for the modern mind by the distinction between moral and prudential judgments, and the prima facie conflict between ‘interest’ and ‘duty.’ Being thus familiar with the conception of deliberate choice consciously opposed either to interest or to duty, we can without much difficulty conceive of such choice in conscious opposition to both. See chap. ix. § [3], of this Book.
[57] It is most convenient to regard “intention” as including not only such results of volition as the agent desired to realise, but also any that, without desiring, he foresaw as certain or probable. The question how far we are responsible for all the foreseen consequences of our acts, or, in the case of acts prescribed by definite moral rules, only for their results within a certain range, will be considered when we come to examine the Intuitional Method.