Thusheregardsthe’physiologicalmetaphysicsofthepresentday’asan’idlewasteoflabourandingenuityonquestionstowhichthehumanmindisaltogetherincompetent。’39*TheprinciplesfoundbyinductiveobservationareasindependentofthesespeculationsasNewton’stheoryofgravitationofanultimatemechanicalcauseofgravitation。
Hartley’sfollowers，however，coulddropthe’vibration’theory；andtheirdoctrinethenbecameoneof’associationofideas。’Tothisfamoustheory，whichbecamethesheet-anchoroftheempiricalschool，Stewartisnotaltogetheropposed。Wefindhimspeakingof’indissolubleassociation’inlanguagewhichremindsusoftheMills。40*Humehadspokenofassociationascomparabletogravitation——thesoleprinciplebywhichour’ideas’and’impressions’
arecombinedintoawhole；atheory，ofcourse，correspondingtohisdoctrineof’belief’asamerecustomofassociating。StewartusestheprincipleratherasLockehaddone，asexplainingfallaciesdueto’casualassociations。’
Itsupposes，ashesays，thepreviousexistenceofcertainprinciples，andcannotbeanultimateexplanation。Theonlyquestioncanbeatwhatpointwehavereachedan’originalprinciple，’andarethereforeboundtostopouranalysis。41*Overthisquestionheglidesrathertoolightly，asishiscustom；butfromhispointofviewthebelief，forexample，inanexternalworld，cannotbeexplainedbyassociation，inasmuchasitrevealsitselfasanultimatedatum。
Inregardtothephysicalsciences，then，Stewart’spositionapproximatesverycloselytothepurely’empirical’view。Whenwecometoadifferentapplicationofhisprinciples，wefindhimtakingacuriouslybalancedpositionbetweendifferentschools。’Commonsense’naturallywishestoadaptitselftogenerallyacceptedbeliefs；andwithsoflexibleadoctrineasthatof’intuitions’itisnotdifficulttodiscovermethodsofprovingtheordinarydogmas。Stewart’stheologyischaracteristicofthistendency。Hedescribestheso-calledaprioriproof，asformulatedbyClarke。Butwithoutdenyingitsforce，hedoesnotliketolaystressuponit。Hedreads’ontology’toomuch。Hethereforeconsidersthattheargumentatoncemostsatisfactorytothephilosopherandmostconvincingtoordinarymenistheargumentfromdesign。ThebeliefinGodisnot’intuitive，’butfollowsimmediatelyfromtwofirstprinciples：theprinciplethatwhateverexistshasacause，andtheprinciplethata’combinationofmeansimpliesadesigner。’42*Thebeliefinacausearisesonourperceptionofchangeasourbeliefintheexternalworldarisesuponoursensations。Thebeliefindesignmustbea’firstprinciple’becauseitincludesabeliefin’necessity’whichcannotarisefrommereobservationof’contingenttruths。’43*HenceStewartacceptsthetheoryoffinalcausesasstatedbyPaley。ThoughPaley’sethicsoffendedhim，hehasnothingbutpraisefortheworkuponNaturalTheology。44*Thus，although’commonsense’doesnotenableustolaydownthecentraldoctrineoftheologyasaprimarytruth，itdoesenableustointerpretexperienceintheologicalterms。Inotherwords，histheologyisofthepurelyempiricalkind，whichwas，asweshallsee，thegeneralcharacteristicofthetime。
InStewart’sdiscussionofethicalproblemsthesamedoctrineof’finalcauses’assumesaspecialimportance。Stewart，aselsewhere，triestoholdanintermediateposition；tomaintaintheindependenceofmoralitywithoutcommittinghimselftothe’ontological’orpurelylogicalview；andtoshowthatvirtueconducestohappinesswithoutallowingthatitsdictatesaretobededucedfromitstendencytoproducehappiness。HisdoctrineistoagreatextentderivedfromtheteachingofHutchesonandBishopButler。
HereallyapproximatesmostcloselytoHutcheson，whotakesasimilarviewofUtilitarianism，butheprofessesthewarmestadmirationofButler。HeexplicitlyacceptsButler’sdoctrineofthe’supremacyoftheconscience’——
adoctrinewhichashesays，thebishop，’hasplacedinthestrongestandhappiestlight。’45*Heendeavours，again，toapproximatetothe’intellectualschool，’ofwhichRichardPrice1723-1791wasthechiefEnglishrepresentativeatthetime。LikeKant，Pricededucesthemorallawfromprinciplesofpurereason。Thetruthofthemorallaw。’Thoushaltdotoothersasyouwishthattheyshoulddotoyou，’isasevidentasthetruthofthelawingeometry，’thingswhichareequaltothesamethingareequaltoeachother。’Stewartsofarapprovesthathewishestogivetothemorallawwhatisnowcalledallpossible’objectivity，’whilethe’moralsense’ofHutchesonapparentlyintroduceda’subjective’element。Heholds，however，thatourmoralperceptions’involveafeelingoftheheart，’aswellasa’judgmentoftheunderstanding，’46*
andascribesthesameviewtoButler。Butthen，byusingtheword’reason’
soastoincludethewholenatureofarationalbeing，wemayascribetoitthe’originofthosesimpleideaswhicharenotexcitedinthemindbytheoperationofthesenses，butwhichariseinconsequenceoftheoperationoftheintellectualpowersamongthevariousobjects。’47*Hutcheson，hesays，madehis’moralsense’unsatisfactorybytakinghisillustrationsfromthe’secondary’insteadofthe’primaryqualities，’48*andthuswiththehelpofintuitivefirstprinciples，Stewartsucceedsinbelievingthatitwouldbeashardforamantobelievethatheoughttosacrificeanotherman’shappinesstohisownastobelievethatthreeanglesofatriangleareequaltoonerightangle。49*Itistruethatafeelingandajudgmentarebothinvolved；butthe’intellectualjudgment’isthegroundworkofthefeeling，notthefeelingofthejudgment。50*Inspite，however，ofthisattempttoassimilatehisprinciplestothoseoftheintellectualschool，thesubstanceofStewart’sethicsisessentiallypsychological。Itrests，infact，uponhisviewthatphilosophydependsuponinductivepsychology，and，therefore，essentiallyuponexperiencesubjecttothecroppingupofconvenient’intuitions。’
ThisappearsfromthenatureofhisargumentagainsttheUtilitarians。
Inhistime，thisdoctrinewasassociatedwiththenamesofHartley，Tucker，Godwin，andespeciallyPaley。HescarcelyreferstoBentham。51*Paleyistherecognisedanvilfortheoppositeschool。Nowheagrees，asIhavesaid，withPaley’sviewofnaturaltheologyandentirelyacceptsthereforethetheoryof’finalcauses。’Thesametheorybecomesprominentinhisethicalteaching。WemayperhapssaythatStewart’sviewisinsubstanceaninvertedUtilitarianism。Itmaybebestillustratedbyanargumentfamiliarinanotherapplication。Paleyandhisopponentsmightagreethatthevariousinstinctsofananimalaresoconstitutedthatinpointoffacttheycontributetohispreservationandhishappiness。Butfromonepointofviewthisappearstobesimplytosaythattheconditionsofexistencenecessitateacertainharmony，andthattheharmonyisthereforetobeaconsequenceofhisself-preservation。
Fromtheoppositepointofview，whichStewartaccepts，itappearsthattheself-preservationistheconsequenceofapre-establishedharmony，whichhasbeendivinelyappointedinorderthathemaylive。Stewart，inshort，isa’teleologist’ofthePaleyvariety。Psychologyprovestheexistenceofdesigninthemoralworld，asanatomyorphysiologyprovesitinthephysical。
Stewartthereforefullyagreesthatvirtuegenerallyproduceshappiness。
lfitbetrueadoctrine，hethinks，beyondourcompetencetodecidethat’thesoleprincipleofactionintheDeity’isbenevolence，itmaybethathehascommandedustobevirtuousbecauseheseesvirtuetobeuseful。Inthiscaseutilitymaybethefinalcauseofmorality；andthefactthatvirtuehasthistendencygivestheplausibilitytoutilitariansystems。52*Butthekeytothedifficultyisthedistinctionbetween’final’and’efficient’
causes；fortheefficientcauseofmoralityisnotthedesireforhappiness，butaprimitiveandsimpleinstinct，namely，themoralfaculty。
ThusherejectsPaley’snotoriousdoctrinethatvirtuediffersfromprudenceonlyinregardingtheconsequencesinanotherworldinsteadofconsequencesinthis。53*Rewardandpunishment’presupposethenotionsofrightandwrong’andcannotbethesourceofthosenotions。Thefavouritedoctrineofassociation，bywhichtheUtilitariansexplainedunselfishness，isonlyadmissibleasaccountingformodifications，suchasareduetoeducationandexample，but’presupposestheexistenceofcertainprincipleswhicharecommontoallmankind。’Theevidenceofsuchprinciplesisestablishedbyalonganddiscursivepsychologicaldiscussion。Itisenoughtosaythatheadmitstworationalprinciples，’self-love’andthe’moralfaculty，’thecoincidenceofwhichislearnedonlybyexperience。Themoralfacultyrevealssimple’ideas’ofrightandwrong，whichareincapableofanyfurtheranalysis。
Butbesidesthese，thereisahierarchyofotherinstinctsordesires，whichhecalls’implanted’because’foraughtweknow’theymaybeof’arbitraryappointment。’54*Resentment，forexample，isanimplantedinstinct，ofwhichthe’finalcause’istodefendusagainst’suddenviolence。’55*Stewart’sanalysisiseasygoingandsuggestsmoreproblemsthanitsolves。Thegeneralposition，however，isclearenough，andnot，Ithink，withoutmuchrealforceasagainstthePaleyformofutilitarianism。
Theacceptanceofthedoctrineof’finalcauses’wastheinevitablecourseforaphilosopherwhowishestoretaintheoldcreedsandyettoappealunequivocallytoexperience。ItsuitstheamiableoptimismforwhichStewartisnoticeable。
Toprovetheexistenceofaperfectdeityfromtheevidenceaffordedbytheworld，youmustofcoursetakeafavourableviewoftheobservableorder。
StewartshowsthesametendencyinhisPoliticalEconomy，whereheisAdamSmith’sdisciple，andfullysharesSmith’sbeliefsthattheharmonybetweentheinterestsoftheindividualandtheinterestsofthesocietyisanevidenceofdesignintheCreatorofmankind。InthisrespectStewartdiffersnotablyfromButler，towhosereasoningsheotherwiseowedagooddeal。WithButlertheconscienceimpliesadreadofdivinewrathandjustifiestheconceptionofaworldalienatedfromitsmaker。Stewart’s’moralfaculty’simplyrecognisesorrevealsthemorallaw；butcarriesnosuggestionofsupernaturalpenalties。
ThedoctrinesbywhichButlerattractedsomereadersandrevoltedothersthrownoshadowoverhiswritings。Heisaplacidenlightenedprofessor，whoserealgoodfeelingandfrequentshrewdnessshouldnotbeoverlookedinconsequenceoftheratherdesultoryandoftensuperficialmodeofreasoning。
This，however，suggestsafinalremarkuponStewart’sposition。
Inthepreface56*tohisActiveandMoralPowers1828StewartapologisesforthelargespacegiventothetreatmentofNaturalReligion。Thelectures，hesays，whichformthesubstanceofthebook，weregivenatatimewhen’enlightenedzealforliberty’wasassociatedwiththe’recklessboldnessoftheuncompromisingfreethinker。’Hewished，therefore，toshowthatamancouldbealiberalwithoutbeinganatheist。ThisgivesthepositioncharacteristicofStewartandhisfriends。ThegroupofeminentmenwhomadeEdinburghaphilosophicalcentrewasthoroughlyinsympathywiththerationalistmovementoftheeighteenthcentury。Theolddogmaticsystemofbeliefcouldbeheldverylightlyevenbythemoreeducatedclergy。Hume’spositionissignificant。Hecouldlaydownthemostunqualifiedscepticisminhiswritings；
buthealwaysregardedhistheoriesasintendedfortheenlightened；hehadnowishtodisturbpopularbeliefsintheology，andwasastrongToryinpolitics。Hisfriendswerequitereadytotakehimuponthatfooting。Thepolitenesswithwhich’MrHume’s’speculationsarenoticedbymenlikeStewartandReidisincharacteristiccontrasttothereceptiongenerallyaccordedtomorepopularsceptics。Theywereintellectualcuriositiesnotmeantforimmediateapplication。TherealopinionofsuchmenasAdamSmithandStewartwasprobablyarathervagueandoptimistictheism。Intheprofessor’schairtheycouldtalktoladsintendedfortheministrywithoutinsultingsucholdScottishprejudicetherewasagooddealofitassurvived：andcouldcoverrationalisingopinionsunderlanguagewhichperhapsmighthaveadifferentmeaningfortheirhearers。Thepositionwasnecessarilyoneoftacitcompromise。