Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T16:05:20.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Good as Means and as End

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Extract

The various discussions on morals which have recently appeared in the pages of this journal, like most modern discussions of the subject, have had to concern themselves with two antitheses, between the good and the right, and between duty and interest. As to the first, is the good what it is because it is right, or is right what it is because it is good? Or may the two be distinct, so that what is right is not necessarily good? And if it is not good, is it bad? Or do the right and the good overlap? For the second, the antithesis between duty and interest—“of course,” says one, “the two have nothing to do with one another; the more carefully we keep them apart, the better.” In rare instances, indeed, it will be allowed that my duty may coincide with my interest; but when it does so, it is felt to be shorn of half its worth. If it pays me to tell the truth, what thank have I for all my veracity?

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 377 note 1 The reader will remember R. L. Stevenson's character: “Though virtue to me is a name, and honour but the shadow of a sound, there are certain things which I will not do, and certain things which I will not stand.”

page 380 note 1 This has been strikingly brought out in SirSherrington, C.'s Gifford Lectures, Man on his Nature, especially ch. ivGoogle Scholar.