Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 23:91 (Jul 1866)
Article: Utilitarianism
Author: John Bascom

BSac 23:91 (Jul 1866) p. 435

Utilitarianism

Rev. John Bascom

There is no question in modern philosophy more fundamental than that relating to the sources of knowledge, and none whose decision will more seriously affect all subsequent thought. The two answers given to this problem are now as distinct and hostile as ever before; while opposing views are sustained with increasing clearness and force of presentation.

Mr. Mill, a leading advocate of one theory, asserts its increased prevalence, and anticipates its final success. The two opinions require but the briefest mention. The one, that of Locke, Heartly, the Mills, Bain, Spencer, refers knowledge to perception and reflection; the other, that of Kant, Coleridge, Reid, Hamilton, Hickok, refers knowledge to perception, intuition, and reflection.

These systems have very different affinities by inherent tendencies, by the circumstances which have occasioned and accompanied their development, and the persons through whom they have arisen. The first is more immediately connected with the scientific and positive tendency of human thought — that which finds the analoga of mind in the physical world, and interprets the problems of philosophy by extension of the methods and ideas developed in science. Of this class of thinkers are Buckle and Draper, explaining social and intellectual phenomena by physical and physiological forces, and by these material connections, not simply reaching, but completely expounding, the spiritual world.

The second system, on the other hand, has been developed largely in the interest of religion, of our higher nature, and stands associated with a devout spirit, putting itself in communion with God, and resting on a providence more immediate and personal than that of law. Of writers of this char-

BSac 23:91 (Jul 1866) p. 436

acter, Dr. Bushnell furnishes a most apt illustration. We shall not insist on any inherent necessity in these connections of the respective theories. We might adduce most notable exceptions. We merely remark these relations of the discussion as lending to it additional interest and importance.

As a chief argument for the first opinion is, that it postulates no new power till an absolute necessity is shown, we shall, if we establish any one idea as intuitive, virtually break down the entire line of defence, and resolve the question into one of details— how many and what ideas are to be attributed to this intuitive faculty, in one case recognized.

The notion now offered for discussion is that of right; not because the battle can be any more advantageously waged at this point than at many others; but because the doctrine of secondary, derivative obligation has received an enlarged, thoro...