This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
[35]
8. Now when we meet with expediency in1
some specious form or other, we cannot help being
influenced by it. But if upon closer inspection one
sees that there is some immorality connected with
what presents the appearance of expediency, then
one is not necessarily to sacrifice expediency but
to recognize that there can be no expediency where
there is immorality. But if there is nothing so
repugnant to Nature as immorality (for Nature
demands right and harmony and consistency and
abhors their opposites), and if nothing is so
thoroughly in accord with Nature as expediency,
then surely expediency and immorality cannot coexist in one and the same object.
Again: if we are born for moral rectitude and if2
that is either the only thing worth seeking, as Zeno
thought, or at least to be esteemed as infinitely outweighing everything else, as Aristotle holds, then it
necessarily follows that the morally right is either
the sole good or the supreme good. Now, that
which is good is certainly expedient; consequently,
that which is morally right is also expedient.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.