In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

SECTION VII The Judgment of Right and Wrong 1. Wrongness Is Badness Traced Back to Character Lecture XXV. November 27, 1900 THE JUDGMENT OF right and wrong, involving the application of a standard, is essentially a judgment regarding future action. When applied to something already done it is by considering that act as the outcome ofthe process. The terms 'good' and 'bad' express in themselves judgments offact. To say that an act is good and yet wrong would then mean as a result it gave satisfaction, yet when considered in relation to the process of action, with reference, so to speak, to its do-ability, to whether it is the kind of action which should be striven for, the answer would be in the negative. To take a case where the standard or criterion would be utilized with reference to something done: A man may have done a certain thing from impulse or custom or even after deliberation, because he regarded it as good; that is, as a form of satisfaction. And yet after it has been done he pronounces it wrong. That, even if it has brought the satisfaction which it was originally regarded as likely to furnish, that would be because after the act has been performed (or in its performance) a wider horizon has brought to view a larger series of values. And the experience is no longer regarded by itself alone but is considered as a part or member ofa larger whole ofexperience. It represents a dormant conception of a larger and more fundamental good with reference to which this particular act or experience now seems to be evil or wrong. (Although as long as it was taken by itself it was good.) Acting upon any idea brings to light facts and experiences previously overlooked or for the recognition of which there was no adequate ground. 74 Logic of Ethics 75 There is a very striking instance ofthat from the psychological point ofview in a story, quoted by Professor James, of a blind street boy.1 He had been accustomed to gain his livingby stealing, which he did without any conscience, without bringing into play the categories of right and wrong. One day he stole a ten dollar gold piece instead of the smaller amount he had been accustomed to and expected. He realized the difference by touch and saw that he had got a larger contract than he had bargained for. And his conscience was awakened. That is, he felt he had done something wrong. The acting on a certain idea there had brought about a result so much bigger than expected, that the mere bulk of it frightened him and led him to see the impulse in a very different way. This illustrates the acting upon a certain idea and finding a natural satisfaction in that mode ofaction until results come to light which are obviously unsatisfactory or which threaten a serious and more fundamental dissatisfaction. And thus the idea or form of good embodied in the action is necessarily reconsidered and the estimate of value is revised. A man continually does something from carelessness, and some day a very serious accident comes near resulting from this action. He is thus made conscious of his purpose, and in a critical way has to look the whole field over; and then [he] begins to bring the action within the conscious moral sphere. That explains the assertion that the judgment of good or bad need not necessarily be moral or immoral because it may not necessarily involve reference to a standard or norm ofaction. Thejudgment ofright is simply the judgment of good brought to critical consciousness and maintained after a critical survey ofthe field. The individual mayjudge this act to be wrong in the sense simply of meaning that he will not do that any more; practically, that it would be wrong if he should do it ae:ain knowine: what he does now. In one case the judgment is confined to the particular act of experience and the question is not raised as to why this wrong estimate was made. The judgment is more superficial and limited. In the second case the individual will say not merely that his act was wrong but that he was an evildoer. Instead of limiting the disapprobation to the act itself, [he] will carry the condemnation back to himself as the source from which the act arose. The difference, on the basis ofwhat has been said, is that when...

Share