You are on page 1of 7

On the Meaning of the Term "Motive," and on the Ethical Significance of Motives

Author(s): David G. Ritchie


Source: International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Oct., 1893), pp. 89-94
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2375713 .
Accessed: 14/05/2014 16:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Journal of Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.168 on Wed, 14 May 2014 16:36:55 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Discussions.

89

DISCUSSION
ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM " MOTIVE,

AND ON THE ETHI-

CAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MOTIVES.

IN the two admirable and (as teachersof philosophywill

gratefullyacknowledge) most useful manuals on Ethics by


Mr. J. H. Muirhead and Mr. J. S. Mackenzie, I notice a certain agreementin what seems to me an unfortunate
and mistaken use of the term" motive."
Mr. Muirhead writesas follows (" Elements of Ethics," p.
56):
" For whateverelse a motiveis, it is agreed by all thatit is equivalentto an
end or aim representing
somethingthatis to be realized,-eg., a future
pleasure
to ourselves,a good to others,or a truthto be discovered,notsomethingthat is
alreadyrealized as is the feelingin question[viz., the feelingof pleasurein the
thoughtof a futurepleasure,etc.]. This maybe otherwiseexpressedby saying
that,while feelingas an elementin desiremaybe said to be the efficient
cause
of action,a motiveis universallyadmittedto be a finalcause."

Mr. Mackenzie, who in a foot-noterefersto this page of


Mr. Muirhead's book, gives the followingaccount of the
meaning of motive("A Manual of Ethics," pp. 37, 38):
" The term 'motive' is not less ambiguous than ' intention.' The motive
means,of course,what movesus or causesus to act in a particularway. Now,
thereis an ambiguityin the term' cause.' A cause maybe eitherefficient
or
final. The efficient
cause of a man's movements,
forinstance,is the actionof
certainnerves,muscles,etc.; the final cause is the desireof reachinga certain
destinationor producinga certainresult. There is a similarambiguityin the
use of the term' motive.' A motivemaybe understoodto mean that which
The motive[in
ino5elsor thatwhichinducesus to act in a particularway.
the second and 'more correct sense'] that which induces us to act, is the
thoughtof a desirableend" (Cf p. 23i, note 5).

Now, of course,any writeron technicalsubjects-and ethics


treatedscientifically
is a technicalsubject-requires to give to
termsgreaterprecisionthan belongs to them in ordinaryuse,
and is at libertyto give his own meanings to ordinaryterms,
provided he does so explicitly. But, in the firstplace, it is at

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.168 on Wed, 14 May 2014 16:36:55 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

go

InternationalY7ournalof Ethics.

least veryinexpedientto use termsin a way that deviates too


much fromtheir ordinaryliteraryuse, especially in subjects
of such concrete interestas ethics. Now, it seems to me
veryinexpedientto limitthe termmotiveto the finalcause, or
even to regard it as less correctlyapplied to the efficient
causeis the apX7 XCIV
cause; fortheefficient
fawq, thebeginning
or source ofmovement.As a matterofetymologyand ofhistory
(forit is fromAristotlethatwe derivethis distinctionbetween
efficient
and finalcauses), and also as a matterof general litcause of voleraryand popular usage, motiveis the efficient
untaryaction. It is true that sometimes (most certainlynot
" universally")motiveis used forthe end or object of action,
-e.g., when Bancroftwrites (I am quoting fromthe Century
Dictionary,s. v.), "The conversion of the heathen was the
motiveto the settlement." But in such an expression are we
not aware of a certainlooseness, or at least abbreviation,of
language ? " The desireor wish to convert the heathenwas
the motive"would be the more strictlyaccurate manner of
expressing the idea. When we speak of a person's motives
we generallymean the feelingswhich influencehis conduct,
and not simply the ends or objects of his action, apart
fromtheirmentalexistence as constitutingthe contentof his
feelings,-e.g., we talk of a person acting from motives of
ambition,of envy,of religious sentiment,etc.,-all such motives being feelingsand not ends.
But, secondly,the errorin the statementsof Mr. Muirhead
and Mr. Mackenzie seems to me to lie deeper than in a preference forthe less usual and less accurate over the more usual
and more accurate meaning of the term. It affectsthe conception of causalityas applied to human conduct. Mr. Mackenzie says, " The efficient
cause of a man's movementsis the
action of certain nerves, muscles," etc. Now, the action of
cause
certainnervesmay, indeed,be describedas the efficient
of a man's movements; but the action of certain muscles is
just these movements themselves,in their physical aspect.
If we are considering a man's movements not merelyas
physical events, but, ethically,as part of his " conduct," it
would be more correctto say that the action of certainnerves

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.168 on Wed, 14 May 2014 16:36:55 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JiscissiZons.

91

and muscles was the material cause of his movements. The


efficientcause of conduct must be sought by psychological
and not by physiological investigation,except in so far as
physiological conditionsare, throughtheireffecton the feelings, the indirect cause of voluntaryacts. To say, as Mr.
Mackenzie does, that " the final cause is the desireof reaching," etc., seems to me an inaccurate and certainlyan unAristotelian use of the term. The finalcause is the end or
object of action: the end as desiredmay be the efficient
cause.*
In the famousphrase(Met., I072, b. 3) applied to God (Reason
-the pure lpreea), Aristotlesays, " xeyeT
as ?pa seoV,"-i.e., the
ultimateformaland finalcause acts as an efficientcause only
by being the object of desire. And in perfectaccordance
with this is the language of Ethics,vi. 2, ? 5, 8atvotaavrrnovb6l
xcYe1, d2' t geexadToo xat rpaxex7j. By aed'oca 7rpaxr-x Aristotle
goes on to explain that he means dpexrexO' vob3sor Opeseq
&8eavorTex. That is to say, he holds that intellectalone can
never be an efficientcause, but only intellectdirected to an
end, and such intellectmust be intellectmixed withappetite.
The " thoughtof a desirable end" is not a motive,it does not
move to action, unless it stimulatesmy desires.
Mr. Mackenzie, by speaking of a desire for an end as itself
a finalcause, escapes the difficulty
of making a finalcause as
such explain voll- .ary action. Mr. Muirhead definesmotive
as the " idea of the object which,through congruitywith the
character of the self, moves the will." Under the phrase
6 congruitywith the characterof the self" may be concealed
the elementof appetiteor feelingwhich seems to be indispensable in motive; but it is not clearly indicated.
If I may pronounce on the "motive" which "induced"
both Mr. Muirhead and Mr. Mackenzie to adopt their statements respectingmotives,I should say that it was a desire to
bring out forciblythe point on which ProfessorT. H. Green
insisted in his treatmentof the will,-the distinction,namely,
between motiveon the one side and mere animal appetiteor
* I should perhaps remindmyreadersthatthe only" causes" recognizedby
modern" empirical"logic are the " efficient"
and the " material."

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.168 on Wed, 14 May 2014 16:36:55 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

92

International-ournal of Ethics.

impulse on the other. Motive always impliesa conceptionof


an end, it is true; but a motiveis not a conceptionof an end
apart fromdesire. Green himself,though his language may
occasionally give some countenance to the exaggeration (as
it appears to me) of Mr. Muirhead and Mr. Mackenzie, is
careful to say (" Prolegomena to Ethics," ? 9i, p. 96), "The
motiveto everyimputableact forwhich the agent is conscious
on reflectionthat he is answerable,is a desire for personal
good in some form or other." Whatever else a motive is, it
is a desire,-i.e., a feeling. When a desireor appetitebecomes
the motiveof a rationalbeing it is transmutedin character,but
the elementof desire is still there. I hold withAristotlethat
no idea of an end, apart from desire,can ever be a motive:
8edvoca abrB- o060i' xivel.

It seems to me very importantfor those who, hold by


"idealist" ethics to avoid exaggeration on this matter: otherwise they give countenance to the contemptwith which the
ordinaryutilitarianis apt to treattheirtheories,as ignoringthe
psychologyofvolition. Mr.S. Alexander seems to me to counkind. In his very interesting
tenance an errorof a different
article on "Character and Conduct" in the Julynumberof
this JOURNAL, he seems to go farthereven than J. S. Mill in
depreciatingthe ethical significanceof motives. " Mill," he
says, in a foot-noteon p. 471, " is not quite accurate when he
says, in a well-knownpassage of his 'Utilitarianisin,'that a
man's motiveis importantfor judging character,but not for
judging conduct. He should have said disposition or themperament,though the contextshows he has in mind the distinction[between character and disposition]." The passage
in Mill occurs in a foot-noteon p. 27 of his " Utilitarianism"
(4th edition): "The moralityof the action depends entirely
upon the intention,-that is, upon what the agent wills to do.
But the motive,that is, the feelingwhich makes him will so
to do, when it makes no differencein the act makes none in
in our moral
the morality:though it makes a greatdifference
estimation of the agent, especially if it indicates a good or
bad habitual disposition,-a bent of character from which
useful, or from which hurtfulactions are likely to arise."

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.168 on Wed, 14 May 2014 16:36:55 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DiscUssZons.

93

Mill seems to me quite right (he is certainlyquite in accordance withAristotleas well as with ordinaryusage) in identifying" character"with " habitual disposition." Character is
certainlymuch more than natural (inherited)temperament;
but that natural temperamentis part of the materialout of
which character is formed,and that habit becomes a sort of
"second nature," Mr. Alexander would, I fancy,be among
the last to deny. When we speak of a person acting from
motives of ambition, of religious sentiment,of familyaffection,etc.,these motives are only in part due to temperament
or disposition,in any sense in which that can be distinguished
fromcharacter: in all cases they are largely due to the character which the man has formed,-i.e., the course of conduct
he has habituallyfollowed. So that Mill seems rightin saying that motives throwlight on character. As to Mill's denial that they should affectour judgment of acts, may I make
the followingsuggestion towards obviatingthe apparentcontradictioninvolvedin his abstractdistinctionbetween "act"
and " agent" ? Afterall, we can in an intelligiblesense speak
of a good man doing a wrong action fromgood motives.
When we are pronouncingan ethicaljudgment on an act, we
are generallyconsideringan act ofsuch a kind,-the act in its
general aspects; forthat is all that,as a rule, we are able to
consider. A man saves another's life: we call it a good
action, meaningthat acts of such a kind are acts of which we
approve. A man kills another: we call it a bad action,meaning that acts of such a kind are acts of which we disapprove.
It may happen in a particularcase that a man may save a
life owing to meaner motives(e.g.,hope of reward)than those
which lead another man-say, a sincere and disinterested
patriot-to kill a tyrant. Motives being identical with the
spiritin which an act is done are, it seems to me, ideally,the
true subject of moral judgment; but, in practice,it is well to
confessthat motivescould be known in their fulnessonly to
an omniscient judge, and forhuman beings it is wiser on the
whole to pronouncejudgment on acts in their general aspect.
The individual cannotknow even his own motivesadequately.
In the long run,but only in the long run and on the whole,

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.168 on Wed, 14 May 2014 16:36:55 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

International 2ournacof Ethics.

94

good motivescannotbringforthbad (i.e.,socially mischievous)


acts; and when we judge the characterand the motives,we are
the natureof the tree from its habitual fruits. But
inferring
we may err in very many cases; and it is certainlybetterto
discussthe rightand wrong of acts. where we can directlyapply a measureand a standard,-viz., theireffectson social wellbeing. The discussion of motives, apart from the acts in
which they are apt to issue, is too likely to end in appeals to
vague and unanalyzed "intuitive" standards. In the case of
legislation it is absolutely necessary to deal with acts (the
connection between English utilitarianismand theories of
legislationwill suggest itself). A system of legislation can
consider only kinds of acts: a systemof ethics cannot practicallydeal with concrete particularacts in theirwhole real
context of motive and occasion,-it can only point out that
the moraljudgment,ideally,deals withsuch concreteparticular acts. A system of ethics may verywell, however, deal
with kinds of character and consequentlywith kinds of motives. Thus, political law says " Do this:" moral law, when it
frompolitical law, takes the higher
comes to be differentiated
form,a formwhich does not admit of exceptions," Be this."
The motive is, ideally,the subject of moral judgments,just
because it is the feelingof a real individualon some definite
occasion, and not an objectiveend capable of being expressed
in general terms and approved or condemned in an abstract
code.
DAVID G. RITCHIE.
JESUS COLLEGE,

" ON HUMAN

OXFORD.

MARRIAGE )-A

REPLY

TO

DR.

C. N. STARCKE.

IF I desire to say a few words in reply to Dr. Starcke, it


is not, of course, because he has criticisedmy " History of
Human Marriage,"but because he has brought against me
an accusation forwhich thereis not the slightestshadow of
foundation.
Dr. Starcke says that he has felta kind of obligation,however unpleasant,publicly to announce that his own opinion of

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.168 on Wed, 14 May 2014 16:36:55 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions