04.02.2013 Views

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

OBJECTIVE 1NTUITIONISM ,<br />

iBf<br />

English philosopher, Professor C, D. Broad, as one which<br />

could only have been put forward inside a philosophical<br />

class-room.<br />

Confusion between the Ownership of an Impulse and<br />

its Object. The mistake which Hobbes makes and,<br />

Butler would add, the mistake which all egoists and<br />

hedonists make, is in Butler's terminology to reduce the<br />

particular impulses and passions to different expressions<br />

of Self-love, How does this mistaken reduction so frequently<br />

to be made? It arises, Butler holds, from two consions.<br />

The first is a confusion between the ownership ofan<br />

ipulse and its object. Now all impulses are owned by<br />

self, but they do not all have for their object some<br />

change in the st<strong>at</strong>e of the self. Some do; others do not.<br />

Hunger, for example, is an impulse which has for its<br />

object some change in the st<strong>at</strong>e of the self. Butler, in point<br />

of fact, says th<strong>at</strong> the object of hunger is food; but this<br />

is surely wrong. The object of the housewife who is going<br />

to shop is food. The object of hunger is to f<strong>at</strong> food and,<br />

by so doing, to produce an alter<strong>at</strong>ion in the sens<strong>at</strong>ions<br />

experienced by the self, an alter<strong>at</strong>ion which will substitute<br />

for the unpleasant sens<strong>at</strong>ions connected with hunger the<br />

pleasant sens<strong>at</strong>ions of e<strong>at</strong>ing and the pleasant sens<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

of repletion.<br />

In fact, as Professor Broad has pointed out, the object<br />

of an impulse is never a person or thing, but is always,<br />

in so far as it has an object, to produce a change in the<br />

st<strong>at</strong>e of a person or a thing. This correction does not<br />

affect Butler's argument, which is th<strong>at</strong> only some of our<br />

impulses are self-regarding in the sense th<strong>at</strong> they have<br />

as their object some change in the self. Hunger is one<br />

such impulse, but symp<strong>at</strong>hy is not, since symp<strong>at</strong>hy has<br />

as its object the production of some change* in the st<strong>at</strong>e<br />

of the person symp<strong>at</strong>hized with. When we symp<strong>at</strong>hize,<br />

we want to relieve the distress of the person who is the<br />

object of our symp<strong>at</strong>hy. Now Butler's argument against<br />

Egoism is briefly this: the fact th<strong>at</strong> all my impulses are

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!