REES CALIFORNIA PRINCIPLES OF KANT AND HAMILTON. 227 cannot be exceedingly different from God, we If such be the real nature of the doctrine of the Conditioned, and such the results involved in it, then it would be quite natural that all who embrace that doctrine should pour forth their lamentations in unison with Hamilton, proclaiming that we must despair of philosophy, that our so-called science is very poor and worthless, that all our efforts to know end in doubt and failure, and have for their consummation the Knowledge of Nothing. The question arises, Did Hamilton really hold the doctrine which thus asserts the Relativity of Moral Truth? If it had been pointed out to him that it follows as a consequence from the principles which he has laid down, would he have accepted and approved it? From some of his statements we might infer that he would have disapproved and rejected the doctrine in question. For instance, he tells us that "intelligence reveals prescriptive principles of action, absolute and universal, in the Law of Duty;"* and again, that "intelligence recognises" "the unconditional law of duty, and an absolute obligation to fulfil it." Here he appears to embrace the doctrine of Kant, so strongly blamed by Mr. Mansel as a fount of bitter waters: he appears to assign to the principles of Morality an absolute and universal, not a merely relative character. As, however, these utterances are incidental, and are nowhere amplified or systematised, it might be held by some interpreters that they are not to be construed strictly: that Hamilton merely means by them to affirm the existence of a moral standard valid in relation to men living on earth at the present time, and does not intend to assert the validity of this standard in relation to all moral beings, to possible inhabitants of remote stars, to angels, or to God. The expositors who take such a view might plead in support of it, that Hamilton has so repeatedly and so explicitly affirmed the Lectures, vol. i. p. 29. mere relativity of all our knowledge, that we cannot suppose him to have attributed to truths of the moral Reason an absolute universal validity. Again, they might point out that one great article of his Philosophy is that we know nothing free from distortion: in which case Moral Truths and Principles cognised by us must be altered and distorted by our minds, and cannot be identical with Truths as they are known pure and undistorted by God. And they might urge that if Hamilton, after teaching such doctrines, proceeds to affirm that we can know Moral Principles of an eternal and immutable character, valid in relation to all spiritual Beings, and conformable with the real principles of Divine Goodness, he would be quite as obnoxious as Kant to the strictures of Mr. Mansel, as trying to send forth from the same fountain sweet and bitter waters, and as building again the things which he had destroyed, thereby making himself a transgressor. Further, they might point out that if Hamilton does ascribe to Moral Principles, cognised by our Reason, an absolute or universal validity, his doctrine would not take away from philosophers the right to criticise statements of professed revelations concerning the moral attributes and conduct of God: in which case it would be no obstacle to the Vulgar Rationalism. Under such circumstances the authority of Hamilton, like that of Butler, cannot be invoked. with much effect, either by the Kantian, who maintains the absolute validity of moral principles, or by the Protagorean, who denies this. It is possible that in reference to this question Hamilton's combative disposition might have induced him to defend two different theses, according to the manner in which the subject might have come before him. Suppose that Brown, or some French philosopher, had taught that our moral principles are merely relative; that principles concerning right and wrong which are true on earth might be false in Orion; that the conduct and character which excite the sentiment of approbation in a rational man might excite disapprobation in angels and in God; or vice versa. Not improbably, Hamilton would have violently denounced such a doctrine as pernicious and detestable, as obliging us to regard our nature as a lie, and our Creator as perfidious. But suppose again, that a rationalist or philosopher had assailed some of the Calvinistic dogmas, of which Hamilton is asserted to have been a staunch adherent:-suppose, for instance, a philosopher had impugned the teaching of Calvin concerning Predestination or Vicarious Punishment, objecting that these doctrines ascribed to God a moral character inconsistent with the rational idea of Goodness; and suppose that a champion of the Calvinistic doctrine had endeavoured to rebut these objections, by urging that moral truths and principles are relative, not absolute; that the Divine standard of Morality may be very different from the human; that thought is only of the con ditioned and finite, and cannot profitably be exercised about God, who is unconditioned and infinite; that its true business is to generalise phenomena into laws, and not to busy itself with theological speculations;—it is by no means impossible that Hamilton would have approved this reasoning, and praised it as a sound and valuable application of the grand doctrine of Relativity. And it is possible that his polemical disposition might have led him to adopt both these different views at different times, causing him to forget during his advocacy of the one what he had urged as champion of the other. |