点击下载App，搜索"Methods of Ethics",免费读到尾

　　as，indeed，wehaveaccepteditwithregardtoallthedeeperflowandfinerexpressionoffeelingeveninthedomesticrelations:foritseemedpedanticandfutiletoprescriberulesforthis，oreventhoughwenaturallyadmireandpraiseanynotungracefulexhibitionofintenseandgenuineaffectiontodelineateanidealofexcellenceforalltoaimat。Still，thereseemedtobeanimportantsphereofstrictduty——howeverhardtodefine——intherelationsofchildrentoparents，etc。，andeveninthecaseoffriendshipitseemscontrarytocommonsensetorecognisenosuchsphere；asitnotunfrequentlyoccurstoustojudgethatonefriendhasbehavedwronglytoanother，andtospeakasiftherewereaclearlycognisablecodeofbehaviourinsuchrelations。

　　Perhaps，however，wemaysaythatallclearcasesofwrongconducttowardsfriendscomeunderthegeneralformulaofbreachofunderstanding。Friendsnotunfrequentlymakedefinitepromisesofservice，butweneednotconsiderthese，astheirviolationisprohibitedbyadifferentandclearermoralrule。Butfurther，asallloveisunderstoodtoincludeadesireforthehappinessofitsobject，theprofessionoffriendshipseemstobindonetoseekthishappinesstoanextentproportionatetosuchprofession。Nowcommonbenevolencecf。ante，&sect；5prescribesatleastthatweshouldrendertoothermensuchservicesaswecanrenderwithoutanysacrifice，orwithasacrificesotriflingastobequiteoutofproportiontotheservicerendered。Andsincetheprofessionoffriendshipthoughthetermisusedtoincludeaffectionsofvariousdegreemustimplyagreaterinterestinone’sfriend’shappinessthaninthatofmeningeneral，itmustannounceawillingnesstomakemoreorlessconsiderablesacrificesforhim，ifoccasionoffers。Ifthenwedeclinetomakesuchsacrifices，wedowrongbyfailingtofulfilnaturalandlegitimateexpectations。SofarthereseemsnosourceofdifficultyexcepttheindefinitenessinevitablyarisingfromthewiderangeofmeaningscoveredbythetermFriendship。Butfurtherquestionsariseinconsequenceofthechangesoffeelingtowhichhumannatureisliable:first，whetheritisourdutytoresistsuchchangesasmuchaswecan；andsecondly，whetherifthiseffortfails，andlovediminishesordeparts，weoughtstilltomaintainadispositiontorenderservicescorrespondingtoourpastaffection。Andonthesepointstheredoesnotseemtobeagreementamongmoralandrefinedpersons。For，ontheonehand，itisnaturaltoustoadmirefidelityinfriendshipandstabilityofaffections，andwecommonlyregardtheseasmostimportantexcellencesofcharacter:andsoitseemsstrangeifwearenottoaimattheseasatallotherexcellences，asnonemorenaturallystirustoimitation。Andhencemanywouldbepreparedtolaydownthatweoughtnottowithdrawaffectiononcegiven，unlessthefriendbehavesill:whilesomewouldsaythateveninthiscaseweoughtnottobreakthefriendshipunlessthecrimeisverygreat。Yet，ontheotherhand，wefeelthatsuchaffectionasisproducedbydeliberateeffortofwillisbutapoorsubstituteforthatwhichspringsspontaneously，andmostrefinedpersonswouldrejectsuchaboon:while，again，toconcealthechangeoffeelingseemsinsincereandhypocritical。

　　Butasforservices，arefinedpersonwouldnotacceptsuchfromaformerfriendwhonolongerloveshim:unlessinextremeneed，whenanykindoftieis，asitwere，invigoratedbythealreadystrongclaimwhichcommonhumanitygiveseachmanuponallothers。Perhaps，therefore，therecannotbeadutytooffersuchservicesinanycase，whentheneedisnotextreme。Thoughthisinferenceisnotquiteclear:forinrelationsofaffectionweoftenpraiseonepartyforofferingwhatweratherblametheotherforaccepting。Butitseemsthatdelicatequestionsofthiskindaremorenaturallyreferredtocanonsofgoodtasteandrefinedfeelingthanofmoralityproper:oratleastonlyincludedinthescopeofmoralityinsofaraswehaveageneraldutytocultivategoodtasteandrefinementoffeeling，likeotherexcellences。

　　Onthewhole，then，wemaysaythatthechiefdifficultiesindeterminingthemoralobligationsoffriendshiparise1fromtheindefinitenessofthetacitunderstandingimpliedintherelation，and2fromthedisagreementwhichwefindastotheextenttowhichFidelityisapositiveduty。Itmaybeobservedthatthelatterdifficultyisespeciallyprominentinrespectofthoseintimaciesbetweenpersonsofdifferentsexwhichprecedeandpreparethewayformarriage。

　　1passnowtothethirdhead，Gratitude。

　　Ithasbeenalreadyobservedthattheobligationofchildrentoparentsissometimesbaseduponthis:andinotheraffectionaterelationshipsitcommonlyblendswithandmuchstrengthenstheclaimsthatarethoughttoariseoutoftherelationsthemselves；thoughnoneofthedutiesthatwehavediscussedseemreferableentirelytogratitude。Butwheregratitudeisdue，theobligationisespeciallyclearandsimple。Indeedthedutyofrequitingbenefitsseemstoberecognisedwherevermoralityextends；

　　andIntuitionistshavejustlypointedtothisrecognitionasaninstanceofatrulyuniversalintuition。Still，thoughthegeneralforceoftheobligationisnotopentodoubtexceptofthesweepingandabstractkindwithwhichwehavenotheretodeal，itsnatureandextentarebynomeansequallyclear。

　　Inthefirstplace，itmaybeaskedwhetherweareonlyboundtorepayservices，orwhetherweowethespecialaffectioncalledGratitude；whichseemsgenerallytocombinekindlyfeelingandeagernesstorequitewithsomesortofemotionalrecognitionofsuperiority，asthegiverofbenefitsisinapositionofsuperioritytothereceiver。Ontheonehandweseemtothinkthat，insofarasanyaffectioncanpossiblybeaduty，kindlyfeelingtowardsbenefactorsmustbesuch:andyettopersonsofacertaintemperamentthisfeelingisoftenpeculiarlyhardtoattain，owingtotheirdislikeofthepositionofinferiority；andthisagainweconsiderarightfeelingtoacertainextent，andcallit`independence’

　　or`properpride’；butthisfeelingandtheeffusionofgratitudedonoteasilymix，andthemoralistfindsitdifficulttorecommendapropercombinationofthetwo。Perhapsitmakesagreatdifferencewhethertheservicebelovinglydone:asinthiscaseitseemsinhumanthatthereshouldbenoresponseofaffection:whereasifthebenefitbecoldlygiven，themererecognitionoftheobligationandsettleddispositiontorepayitseemtosuffice。And`independence’alonewouldpromptamantorepaythebenefitinordertoescapefromtheburdenofobligation。Butitseemsdoubtfulwhetherinanycasewearemorallysatisfiedwiththisasthesolemotive。

　　Itispartlythisimpatienceofobligationwhichmakesamandesirousofgivingasrequitalmorethanbehasreceived；forotherwisehisbenefactorhasstillthesuperiorityofhavingtakentheinitiative。Butalsotheworthiermotiveofaffectionurgesusinthesamedirection:andhere，asinotheraffectionateservices，wedonotliketooexactameasureofduty；acertainexcessfallingshortofextravaganceseemstobewhatweadmireandpraise。Insofar，however，asconflictofclaimsmakesitneedfultobeexact，wethinkperhapsthatanequalreturniswhatthedutyofgratituderequires，orratherwillingnesstomakesuchareturn，ifitberequired，andifitisinourpowertomakeitwithoutneglectingpriorclaims。Forwedonotthinkitobligatorytorequiteservicesinallcases，evenifitbeinourpowertodoso，ifthebenefactorappeartobesufficientlysuppliedwiththemeansofhappiness:

　　butifheeitherdemanditorobviouslystandinneedofit，wethinkitungratefulnottomakeanequalreturn。Butwhenwetrytodefinethisnotionof`equalreturn’，obscurityanddivergencebegin。Forapartfromthedifficultyofcomparingdifferentkindsofserviceswherewecannotmakerepaymentinkind。Equalityhastwodistinctmeanings，accordingasweconsidertheeffortmadebythebenefactor，ortheservicerenderedtothebenefited。Nowperhapsifeitherofthesebegreat，thegratitudeisnaturallystrong:fortheapprehensionofgreatearnestnessinanothertoserveustendstodrawfromusaproportionateresponseofaffection:

　　andanygreatpleasureorrelieffrompainnaturallyproducesacorrespondingemotionofthankfulnesstothemanwhohasvoluntarilycausedthis，eventhoughhiseffortmayhavebeenslight。Andhenceithasbeensuggested，thatinproportioningtheduesofgratitudeweoughttotakewhicheverofthetwoconsiderationswillgivethehighestestimate。ButthisdoesnotseeminaccordancewithCommonSense:forthebenefitmaybealtogetherunacceptable，anditishardtobindustorepayinfulleverywell-meantblunderingefforttoserveus；thoughwefeelvaguelythatsomereturnshouldbemadeevenforthis。Andthoughitismoreplausibletosaythatweoughttorequiteanacceptedservicewithoutweighingtheamountofourbenefactor’ssacrifice，stillwhenwetakeextremecasestheruleseemsnottobevalid:e。g……ifapoormanseesarichonedrowningandpullshimoutofthewater，wedonotthinkthatthelatterisboundtogiveasarewardwhatbewouldhavebeenwillingtogiveforhislife。

　　Still，weshouldthinkhimniggardlyifheonlygavehispreserverhalf-a-crown:

　　whichmight，however，beprofuserepaymentforthecostoftheexertion。

　　Somethingbetweenthetwoseemstosuitourmoraltaste:butIfindnoclearacceptedprincipleuponwhichtheamountcanbedecided。

　　ThelastclaimtobeconsideredisthatofSpecialNeed。Thishasbeensubstantiallystatedalready，ininvestigatingtheobligationofGeneralBenevolenceorCommonHumanity。Foritwassaidthatweowetoallmensuchservicesaswecanrenderbyasacrificeoreffortsmallincomparisonwiththeservice:andhence，inproportionastheneedsofothermenpresentthemselvesasurgent，werecognisethedutyofrelievingthemoutofoursuperfluity。ButIhavethoughtitrighttonoticethedutyseparately，becausewearecommonlypromptedtofulfilitbythespecificemotionofPityorCompassion。Here，again，thereseemsadoubthowfaritisgoodtofosterandencouragethisemotion——asdistinctfromthepracticalhabitofrenderingpromptaidandsuccourindistress，wheneversuchsuccourisjudgedtoberight。Ontheonehand，theemotionalimpulsetendstomaketheactionofrelievingneednotonlyeasiertotheagent，butmoregracefulandpleasing:ontheotherhand，itisgenerallyrecognisedthatmistakenpityismorelikelytoleadusastraythan——e。g——mistakengratitude:asitismoreliabletointerferedangerouslywiththeinflictionofpenaltiesrequiredforthemaintenanceofsocialorderorwiththeoperationofmotivestoindustryandthrift，necessaryforeconomicwell-being。

　　Andwhen——toguardagainstthelast-mentioneddanger——wetrytodefinetheexternaldutyofrelievingwant，wefindourselvesfacetofacewithwhatisnomereproblemofthecloset，butaseriouspracticalperplexitytomostmoralpersonsatthepresentday。Formanyaskwhetheritisnotourdutytorefrainfromallsuperfluousindulgences，untilwehaveremovedthemiseryandwantthatexistaroundus，asfarastheyareremovablebymoney。AndinansweringthisquestionCommonSenseseemstobeinevitablyledtoaconsiderationoftheeconomicconsequencesofattempting——eitherbytaxationandpublicexpenditure，orbythevoluntarygiftsofprivatepersons——toprovideasufficientincomeforallneedymembersofthecommunity；andisthusgraduallybroughttosubstitutefortheIntuitionalmethodofdealingwithproblemsofthiskindadifferentprocedure，havingatleastmuchaffinitywiththeUtilitarianmethod。

　　Inconclusion，then，wemustadmitthatwhilewefindanumberofbroadandmoreorlessindefiniterulesunhesitatinglylaiddownbyCommonSenseinthisdepartmentofduty，itisdifficultorimpossibletoextractfromthem，sofarastheyarecommonlyaccepted，anyclearandpreciseprinciplesfordeterminingtheextentofthedutyinanycase。Andyet，aswesaw，suchparticularprinciplesofdistributionoftheservicestowhichgood-willpromptsseemtoberequiredfortheperfectionofpracticenolessthanfortheoreticalcompleteness；insofarasthedutieswhichwehavebeenconsideringareliabletocomeintoapparentconflictwitheachotherandwithotherprescriptionsofthemoralcode。

　　Inreplyitmayperhapsbecontendedthatifweareseekingexactnessinthedeterminationofduty，wehavebegunbyexaminingthewrongnotion:that，inshort，weoughttohaveexaminedJusticeratherthanBenevolence。Itmaybeadmittedthatwecannotfindasmuchexactnessaswesometimespracticallyneed，bymerelyconsideringthecommonconceptionsofthedutiestowhichmenarepromptedbynaturalaffections；butitmaystillbemaintainedthatweshallatanyratefindsuchexactnessadequatelyprovidedforundertheheadofJustice。ThiscontentionIwillproceedtoexamineinthenextchapter。

　　{Note。}