Ethics by Radoslav A. Tsanoff (review)

894 BOOK REVIEWS Ethics. By RADOSLAV A. TsANOFF. New York: Harper, 1947. Pp. 899, with index. $8.50. This work of Professor Tsanoff is proposed as a textbook for American Colleges. If the publishers are to be believed, it marks a new high in the field and is certain to be widely adopted. From the viewpoint of the perennial philosophy it has many appealing features. Though not Scholastic, it is Aristotelian in orientation. The arrangement of matter is good. Mter an introduction which considers the nature and range of morality and the problem of value, there follow four parts in which first comes a treatment of the main types of ethical theory, then a consideration of the problem of personal morality, next a section on social ethics, and finally a fifth part which takes up the questions of moral freedom, progress and civilization as well as the relations of ethics and religion. The introduction reveals the Aristotelian direction of the author. "When Aristotle set out to achieve a science of the good on functional lines, defined virtue as a habit of the will, studied man's nature and behaviour in relation to those of the animals and plants; and the various situations of our life when directed and when not directed by reason, he set an example in ethical procedure which has not been sufficiently followed, but to which many contemporary moralists incline in their method and outlook " (p. 20). In this part, too, tJ:te author's tentative proposal of a hierarchy of goods follows the same tenor of thought. The study of the main types of ethical theory which follows seems to this reviewer the best part of the book. Ethical formalism and its great exponent Immanuel Kant, Hedonism and Evolutionary Ethics come in for strong, withal balanced criticism. Tsanoff himself demands " rational intelligence , decisive in human conduct and values " (p. 96) and gives admirable example of its functioning in his judicious and rigorous rejection of the above named errors. He concludes by a choice of goods arranged and subordinated in terms of man's end--self-realization or fulfillment of personality. Problems of personal morality are the concern of the next part. A dangerous flaw in Professor Tsanoff's thinking reveals itself here. Ethics is a practical science but it has its roots deep in speculative philosophy with its summit on the First Cause, God. Because of a faulty metaphysical foundation Professor Tsanoff is betrayed into a statement such as this: " there is no single principle supreme and encompassing all. moral value " (p. 182). Of a part; with this fault and flowing from i~ is a totally mistaken notion of Christian morality. For instance, there is the mistake of holding that " the repression of all appetites found a religious utterance in Christian asceticism " (p. 187) . Their sublimation for a higher good, yes; their total repression, no. Nor is it true that "whether temperance tends to emphasize moderation or abstinence depends upon the partial or BOOK REVIEWS 895 utter depreciation of the passions generally, and especially of the sensual appetites" (p. 188). Professor Tsanoff can be assured of this: in Christian ethics the temperance which asks abstinence is on a much surer and much more positive base than "utter depreciation of the passions generally." Yet in this section there is emphasized a profound insight, dear to Saint Augustine and often cited by St. Thomas: " Bona spiritualia possunt simul a pluribus possideri, non autem bona corporalia" (S. T. III, q. 28, ad 8.) Because of the above mentioned flaw Professor Tsanoff is vague on the highest spiritual good and the means to attain that good. In the year of our Lord 1948 one cannot be just an Aristotelian. The following division treats of social ethics and says much that is worthwhile on marriage and family life, character training, culture in work ,11Jld play, vocation, economic and social life. Tsanoff is to be commended for insisting, that divorce is a moral problem (p. 198) ; but in holding " divorce may sometimes be justified " (p. 210), he must define just what he means ir!. such a case. Does he mean the dissolution of a valid marriage with the ability of one or...