6. El fenómeno social motivo de análisis
6.7. El concepto de poder
move mpbatie by eeyli^ that tW oeaoept of meeeeaity Is not
modified by m# tame omneeted. me «mite that the## I# a
diatiziotioa or diffevoaoe in the omooy# oomeoted# that is,
a motive Is different from a mare "natural" Oatme# but the
$#o«tsnt point is that this diffevenee is not great enoe#
to affect the kind of oomnaotlon, ahiob In identim l in a ll
!
> (1) aw F tm m #e w u . rw«* M e t.* .- 98 —
casea. HoceBsltyj in I t t alaeoluta connotatlcm, "la only the fu ll and fixed connoctlon between the thiqg© klgaifled by the subject and predicate of a proposition". I t matter# not thingk are oontoined In the eobject and predicate,
the only thiqa vôilch matters Ik the fu ll and fixed oomectioiu l3Qwarde eeee that thlc explanation In I tta lf le not enough; he mufit eay aomctMng about the thlnge connected, and the most i%)ortant concept of euoh thii%e le the ccjncopt of
"Choloe". In fao t, he la roady to admit that i t ie "Choiae" which makoa neoeeeecry tho division of "aetaphyelaal" Heoeaalty into "moral" and "natural" Roceaalty. However, he has a l ready made I t quite clear in hik previous reooAa an Moti vation that the term "dholoe" must be need in a vosy guarded oenae. Here, he hinte that "Choice", while dlffeient from mere "natural" Cause, ie often brought about by natural
causee* of oouree, moat people frill to trace tho real ooucee of th eir Choloo, and ore inclined "to cignify the manner of the event by another name".
However, the tern "Choice" really aeoms to introduce a new principle of motion and action, different from the Oktab- li&hod law and order of things. I t seems to Interpose and
interrupt and a lte r the chain of "natural" events. All th is is for üsdwards the commonly acoepted point of view, but he is convinced that "Choice" Is as necessary as any other Cause within the orbit of "metafA^sioal" Recessity. However,
the time has not yet eome for a fu ll and fin al statemmt upon the nature of Jhoioe. adwords has something important to say about another matter which stands intim ately related to Choico, and thiu is "Moral Inability"* Raw, i t w s t be observed that ho has defined "Impossibility" os the negative aspect of "metaphysical" Recessity, az&d the term "Moral
Inability" carries with i t a ll the ifm^lioatiook of th is in te r pretation of "Im possibility". I f th is is not k ^ t in mind,
■ n f ,.. -i ;•- 'W ?À,'.f « '. '.,1 « \ '. ■ '''* " v ’ ■ ■ " '-• - ^ "■■" ' ’ ■ ''■ ’" -’i - - '^ ‘'' ' y ? ’/ ‘.- ^ ÿ - - ~ - C b :
W m Ê# # m # # # #% :# # % # # WWW m :* W l:.:W ^ ty aff «lit qC plmee iat the present Wain #f srgasm t#
A sarefol d istin e tle n aset be msd# between "naturel" «ad "aersl” in ab âlity . «Mn #
wm
ie «nder "astttral** n asb U itr i t ie quite eleer tb a t hé esnaot de s psrtim slar t hi ng #1- Wflttggi h# m i# t "#11" te do it# th a t le ,m
"extrinsie" . (bmee prevents #&e «ffeet «S Me v o litio n , and th is extxim i# Gene# earn be im eome pbysioel or evw n m tal defect# # # » ever# the ease ie qeite d ifferen t with "meml" im b ility . I t ie not s iweetMng estrin sio t# the w ill which new preveeie notion, but isemriMne " ih t # # ie " , ##,ÜM
# e w w ü e tadmmdsft- .
"Moral ib sb ility W neieti ##.*.# elW #r In the wmt e# ^ in elien tlen , # the strength of n eontmry inelinntlen# t - e r the went of stA ic ie n t motives in view to indue# .•
.
y > « Ï . s s j î â ' i a i r u « ? i S S s ^ < » “
.’ , i V Sbwl m n b llity sen be seen in that quality of # a ra e te r " wbieh finds its e lf quite "bauble" to enemit sets of vie#, end eleo in th a t type
of
oham eter,j bWng e v il, esm et per* fe m nets # v irtu # , a # e n t deal of habitual wickedness my make i t quite iepoeeibie for n men to ebon# hMinees# bSsurds ie not. In W a eectlim, empeunding the doctrine efto ta l depravity# Be i s s W ly seyibg MmH n perecn'e habite
J%
and eharacter m editioa Choiee» ffe ith ^ is he saying that ^ erne bad not suet forever deeid# the ebaraeter of the person e# aetins* l i e purpose is eloar and simple* 1# dSLlree to MM# i t V##y clear # s t Ghoic#, mlthou# i t M ^ t %^#ar to interrupt and a lte r natural events, ia not eomethhea th a t arisee out Of nothing# or #eeemda frm the iMiy, i t is in ti* mate% related to the eharaoter of the person aWking
the
' Ghoiee# Further, a careful dl«tln@tlon
m&t
be made betwesm :mMMural" SWi "####1" In a b ility , fhe woïd "Im btutiy* i s' • -1
!
t
- 97 -
to cover a im jltltu d o of alae. %f ::5dwar(îa had said
out bluntlj^ that a wtciiod aoa was "unabla" to (Aoose the Good, Qony would have charged him with Fatallam, or would have doQlnrad the man g uiltlees beoause he was '^unable" to
do or will d ifferent from what W woe doing. That I s , the
mora term "Inability" would bo uead in it* "natural” meaning
ÜMroenXtina
trm
ench phyeleal or mental d efect, or pro-vonted by some "extrlm lc" Caueo. ndwarde w ill not allow
euoh confoeion to hold oonoesmins the "acte of the w ill".
»»*Xt oamot he tru ly emld, eooordlng to the ordinary m e Xt
of lai^mgSf that «
mdioicm
non, le t him he neve# #o maliciowe, eennot hold hie head from etoiklog, en th at he ie met ohle to she# hie meieWhw himdmme# or that o d ritita r^ le t hie oppwlite he meyer go etr(w%, oaie» not iceep l6e ohP from hie ncrath"» (*)That ic , thee# viol one acte oazmot be exoueed ty mere "aatatol" In ab ility . "A man ham a thing in hie power, i f he has i t in hie Qhoiee". Therefore, although many mote of Choice m y mrlee from "natural" Oamee, fin ally and fundamentally. Choice im a moral fact* I t ham te do with imoliimtiom, notive, charaoter and personal end poaltiTo willing# This ie the ju stifica tio n
of
the rather novel interpretation given by Bdwarda of "moral" msoeeslty#jadwarda would agree that **willlng" was really doing — "Ohom onoo ho has w illed, the thing is performed, mod nothing ole# remains to be done". Therefore, whom an aot of v lll ia not done, the question of "Inability” ought not to be raised aa an eaouae. For, the thing wanting is not being ablf# but a
hoim
M llin g ,Of course, a ll thlk xm^ appear as begging the moat v ita l Quoetion, but i t ie only being ju st to Edwards to say th a t, up to this present stage of hie arpoeitlon, he has not hesi tated to see as many points of view as possible, and to face the d iffic u ltie s a t Ihey arise . The jo stifio atio n of his «ystem must await further analysis#
- M *
(4)
8 0