Rosmini’s Theory
of Ethics:
Some Considerations
3 Eudaimonology
In his introduction to his work on Ethics Rosmini points out that the laws which govern our morality are independent of our own human perfection. Whatever contributes to our human perfection is subjective, whereas moral actions result from our obeying an objective law. Although his book professedly deals with Ethics, nevertheless some treatment of Eudaimonology or the science of human happiness is necessary to highlight the contrast between the two and the confusion that characterises a secular understanding of morality. An act is not moral because it concerns and pleases me but because it conforms to the truth. When St. Thomas More was executed in the Tower of London for adhering to his beliefs this did not increase the perfection of his human nature, but the sacrifice of his life was an act of the highest moral order. It is true, of course, that ‘those who lose their life for my sake will find it’.(38) But from the earthly point of view he surrendered a glittering career and his family, everything he held dear in this world, in adhering to the moral good.
Eudaimonology teaches the way to one’s own happiness. This is a subjective good proper for intelligent beings. ‘Happiness is the end which God had before him when he created humanity. By nature humanity essentially desires happiness.’(39) It is therefore a natural God-given tendency. The light which renders us intelligent, and which also may be termed initial being, longs to complete itself by revealing its subsistence, its real term, which is God. St Augustine expressed this longing of human nature in the memorable words: ‘You stir us up, O Lord, and make us find joy in praising you, since you have made us for yourself; and our hearts find no rest until they rest in you.’ (40)
Goodness and human perfection are the sole good of human beings; there can be no good for human beings which does not leave them better than they were. The sciences of human perfection and eudaimonology are, to all intents and purposes the same. In seeking happiness we endeavour to increase our perfection as human beings, knowing all the while that this ultimate perfection can only be found in the next life.
The idea of being is the principle by which we judge good in general, as we saw earlier.(41) And it is consequently the principle enabling us to know what is good and what is evil, fitting or unfitting for us. It is therefore the supreme principle of the science of our own happiness. It is the rule according to which we measure our own good and degrees of happiness.
|
|
Knowledge of happiness has, as its object, the more restricted notion of human, subjective good.(42) |
|
|
Subjective good is good considered relatively to a subject enjoying it. Good in itself, absolute good, is never considered relatively to any subject whatever.(43) |
A thing which is good in itself may not be good for all subjects. A lion is good in itself relative to its degree of being but I would not willingly be caged up with it. On the other hand I might be good for the lion as providing a meal which would increase its perfection. So things which are good in themselves are good only relatively to me in so far as they increase my own subjective perfection. We say, ‘It’s not good for me’, or sometimes, ‘I like that but it doesn’t like me.’ In other words, something which I see as good is not good relatively to me. Because we normally look at things from a subjective point of view it is easy to slip into the fallacy that because something is not good for me, it is not good in itself. We lose sight of good in its objective concept. Some people cannot rise above this notion of relative good to realising that there is no being or perfection of being which is not good for some subject or not good for itself.
|
|
…every being contains the necessary conditions for good which are simply that it be good towards itself, complete and tending with the forces proper to its nature towards its own preservation and perfection.(44) |
The notion or idea of good does not involve degrees of good because it is universal just as the idea of being is universal. But in the real order of things everything that has some degree of existence is also good to that degree. That is to say, as far as contingent beings are concerned, real subsistent good is found in various degrees and these goods cannot be absolute and perfect. But absolute good is that which has all good in itself, just as absolute being is that which has all being in itself. The nature of our intelligence is formed by being but only by initial, potential being. If we were to behold this being in its fullness, in its act, in the term of its act, we would see absolute being. This is the same as saying that we should see good itself, essential good. This complete, absolute being, the highest and absolute good is God.
Happiness consists in the possession of subjective good. This is first and foremost, human existence, human nature. The good on which human perfection depends is determined by the two substances, the corporeal and spiritual, which compose our human nature and subsist in a single subject (‘myself’) the ‘human being.’
|
Happiness and Pleasure Happiness is often confused with pleasure. Happiness is the enjoyment of the greatest good, and totally other than sensual pleasures which in our hedonistic age are thought to bring happiness and well being. These cannot assuage our longing for the absolute good, and if they conflict with the dictates of morality, prevent us from attaining moral perfection when we follow our animal instincts at the expense of wisdom and virtue. The principle relationship between the two elements forming human beings depends on the dignity of the intellective over the animal element and the dignity of the good of the intellective element over the good of the animal element.The sole, absolute good is end, everything else is a means to be ordered and subjected to absolute good |
Now what is the good proper to these two substances? In so far as we are animal subjects we are capable of enjoying only particular, corporeal good. But as intellective subjects we perceive all species of good and enjoy all the good we have perceived. The human intellect can even attain absolute good, which alone can satisfy it entirely and fully. Human beings have a natural desire for God. This provides bliss or happiness. These terms should be reserved for intellective beings and not used in relation to animals who might display pleasure connected with animal instinct.
It could be objected that if absolute
being reveals itself to us then we shall see God, and be identified with him.
However we shall see God without being identified with him. We see the sun,
and are affected by it without becoming what we see; we are warmed by it without
becoming the source of warmth. The object always remains objective.
There is nothing capable of filling the human heart outside the highest good.
When we have as our end some good
|
Bliss In this [absolute] good alone lies true bliss for the intellective nature, and the supreme dignity and beauty which distances itself immeasurably from other natures. Its capacity for intimate union with the absolute good makes it one with this good. Herein lies the final excellence of all creation. Other perfections of created nature can be considered as means, but the bliss we have spoken of must be thought and considered as an end.(45) |
which is less than absolute good, the will can always go further without limiting its desire. The will can want as much as the intellect knows but the intellect can know ever increasing good until it arrives at the complete, highest good, that is, good itself, being itself. That is why our hearts are restless until they rest in God and never satisfied with this world’s goods.
Conclusion
The dignity of the human subject arises from the dignity of the idea of being, the source of the subject’s understanding. Being is the first object of knowledge and the source of all our other knowledge; it renders the mind capable of knowing all the genera and species of good and enjoying such knowledge. It enables the intelligent subject to forget self by considering things as they are in themselves and not relative to the subject, to look at things impartially and justly and to render homage to being itself.
|
The Dignity of the Human Subject 1. The primary dignity of the intelligent subject lies in the contemplation of truth. 2. Secondly, the vision in which the intelligent subject sees universal being is that in which it would see the absolute, subsistent being if it were to reveal itself in its act of subsistence rather than as an idea. This direction towards absolute, infinite being is the second cause of the dignity possessed by intellective beings. 3. The perception of absolute being supposes union with and possession of absolute being, the source of bliss and infinite enjoyment. The capacity for enjoying this bliss is the third and last cause of dignity in intelligent nature. This happiness towards which human nature tends unceasingly, and the means for attaining it, are the subject of eudaimonology. |
Notes
(38) Matthew, 10: 39 (NRSV).
(39) Rosmini, Order of our Petitions to God, Instruction, X, n. 1, note 1.
(40) St Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, 1. ‘…the goodness that attracts and at the same time obliges man has its source in God, and indeed is God himself. He is the source of man’s happiness’ (Veritatis Splendor, no. 9).
(41) p. 22 ff.
(42) Principles of Ethics, n. 47.
(43) Ibid., n. 48.
(44) Op. cit., n. 49.
(45) Op. cit., n. 63