informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/politics/whyright.d

976 lines
53 KiB
D
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

15 page printout
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
This disk, its printout, or copies of either
are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
**** ****
WHY DO RIGHT?
A SECULARIST'S ANSWER.
BY CHARLES WATTS
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
**** ****
WHY DO RIGHT?
A SECULARIST'S ANSWER.
MOST persons can distinguish between right and wrong; but it
is not so easy to decide why certain actions are right, and others
the very reverse. According to orthodox Christianity, the sanction
for right-doing is a conviction that our actions should accord with
God's will, and that we should abstain from the performance of
wrong acts through fear of punishment in some future existence.
These are not the Secular reasons for doing the right thing or
avoiding the wrong. Apart from the difficulty of ascertaining what
the will of God is (for it is nowhere definitely stated), the value
of that will would consist in its nature. We should ask, Is it just
or reasonable to think that obedience to that will would secure the
happiness of the community? Is it not a fact that all that can be
known of the supposed will of the Christian God is to be learnt
from the Bible? But then it should be remembered that the many
representations given of the Divine will in that book are not only
contradictory, but they would, if acted upon, prove most dangerous
to the well-being of society. For instance, it is there stated that
it is God's will that we should take no thought for oar lives
(Matt. vi. 25); that we should not lay up for ourselves treasures
on earth (Matt. vi. 19); that we should resist not evil (Matt. v.
39); that we should set our affections on things above, not on
things on the earth (Col. iii. 2); that we should love not the
world (I John ii. 15); that if we offend in one point of the law,
we are guilty of all (James ii. 10); that we are to obey not only
good, but bad, masters (I Peter ii. 18); and that it is good
morality to say, "What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no
man put asunder" (Matt. xix. 6); that we should swear not at all
(Matt. v. 34). that we cannot go to Christ except the Father draw
us (John vi. 44); that we are to labor not for the meat which
perishoth (John vi. 27); that we are to hate our own flesh and
blood (Luke xiv. 26); that those who leave their families for the
"Gospel's sake" shall be rewarded here and hereafter (Mark x. 29,
30); that men should believe a lie, that they all might be damned
(2 Thess. ii. 11, 12); that the world cannot be saved by any name
except that of Christ Acts iv. 12); that salvation should be
obtained through faith, and not of works (Ephes. ii. 8, 9); that
the sick are to rely upon the "prayer of faith" to save them (James
v. 15); that if any two Christians agree upon something, and send
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
WHY DO RIGHT?
a supplication to heaven for that something, it shall be granted
them (Matt. xviii. 19). Now, according to general experience, if we
complied with the will of God, as here stated, society would not
pronounce our actions as right, but they would be condemned as
being hurtful to the commonwealth.
Secularism is opposed to the orthodox idea that we should do
right through fear of hell. This is the lowest and most selfish
reason for doing good that can be given. According to the Secular
idea, the desire to do right should not be prompted by merely
personal considerations, but with the object of enhancing the best
interests of others, as well as our own. Besides, the fear of hell
has proved inoperative, either as an incentive to right action, or
as a deterrent to wrong doing. Even those who profess to be
influenced by this motive have a greater dread of a policeman than
of a devil, and a more vivid conception of a jail than of a hell.
Penalties remote from life do not, by any means, exercise the same
powerful influence upon human conduct as do those of the present
time. The Secular idea of right and wrong is, that neither is the
mere accident of the time, and that these terms do not represent a
condition which is the result of "chance"; on the contrary, they
denote actions which are the outcome of a law based upon the
fitness of things. The primary truths in morals are as axiomatic as
those in mathematics. Moreover, there is, in the mind of every
properly constituted person, an appreciation of right and a
detestation of wrong. We urge that vice should be shunned because
it is wrong to individuals, and also to society, to indulge in it;
and that virtue should be practiced because it is the duty of all
to assist, both by precept and example, to elevate the human
family. A writer in the London Echo of August 22 last answers the
question why we should do good apart from theological
considerations in the following peculiar language: Because "certain
actions are followed by more happiness to the actor than other
actions, and because those actions which give him the most
happiness are such as are helpful to others. The most highly-
developed men have discovered this to be true, and the 'average'
man will ultimately discover it and act on it. Just in proportion
as we become helpful to others we find our own happiness
increasing. And as all our actions inevitably spring from the
desire of our own happiness, it follows that we must go on becoming
more helpful to each other as we develop. Even those foolish
persons who now injure others know this to a certain extent. Ask a
burglar which gives him the more happiness, to steal or to spend
the money he steals with the woman he lives with? He will tell you
that his highest happiness is in giving pleasure to his Kate. Ask
Andrew Carnegie which gives him the more pleasure, to cut his
workmen's wages down or to spend the money in building a public
library? He will tell you he finds more pleasure in spending the
money for others than in wrenching it from his workmen."
The word "right" originally meant straightened; hence the
common saving, "putting things to righty," is understood as being
equivalent to putting them straight or in order. A writ of right is
a legal method of recovering land that has been wrongfully withheld
from its owner, and to right a ship is to restore it to an upright
position. A man whose acts are deemed good and useful is described
as being "upright" and "straightforward." The notion that legal
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
WHY DO RIGHT?
enactments determine what is morally right and wrong is as
fallacious as the idea that the Bible decides the question. Many of
the laws of our country are based upon principles the very opposite
of what we regard as morality; while the conflicting teachings of
the Bible disqualify it from being a correct guide in ethical
conduct. It appears to us that, if there are no other standards of
right and wrong but those of the Bible and the law of the land,
then such standards by themselves must be arbitrary, having no
universal application to mankind. Possibly some legal and
scriptural commands may be right, but when they are so it is not
because they have the sanction of Parliament or the Bible, but in
consequence of their being in harmony with the taste and
requirements of the public. That many of the decrees and teachings
emanating from these two sources have been considered wrong is
evident from the fact that men have persistently refused to obey
the one or to accept the other. Take the case of those
Freethinkers, philosophers, and scientists who have so often been
at variance with the Church. and who have refused to obey certain
laws of their country which they deemed wrong. These men have not
only been censured, but sometimes they have been punished as wrong-
doers; and yet, ultimately, it was proved that they were in the
right, and that the Church and the law were in the wrong. The
standard of the Church and of the law was tradition, custom, or
common belief; the standard of those who were censured was
knowledge. As this knowledge increased the number of offenders
against the stereotyped forms of law, both human and divine,
increased also, until the old foundations had to yield in favor of
those more in harmony with freedom and justice, and more in
accordance with the intellect of the nation.
By the Secular idea of right we mean that conduct which is
beneficial both to the individual and to the community -- conduct
that is in agreement with an enlightened conception of human duty.
It may be admitted that the usefulness of an act is not always
present in the mind of the actor, but it seems to us impossible to
estimate the value of an action the purpose or result of which is
not useful. The real worth of all actions depends upon the manner
in which they affect our judgment, our feelings, and our general
well-being. When we assert that the sense of right-doing exists in
nature, it must not be supposed that we mean it can be found in a
mountain or in the sea; but our meaning is that it is in that part
of nature called human. It is this belief in the natural basis of
right-doing that inspires us with the endeavor to improve that
nature which is the source of all that is noble. The Secular notion
of right and wrong is based upon reason and experience, which are
the surest guides known to man.
In considering the question of right and wrong we ought not to
ignore any facts, however unpleasant they may be to some of us.
Human nature has its dark as well as its bright side. There are men
so constituted and so surrounded by depraved conditions that, from
their actions, one would suppose they prefer doing wrong rather
than right. In many instances men are ferocious, cruel, and brutal.
They practice lying and deception, and injure and destroy their
fellow creatures. Such persons are too often born in moral
corruption and trained in the lowest form of criminality; they grow
up destitute of any self-respect, and without any sense of right
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
WHY DO RIGHT?
action. People of this class are the unfortunate victims of a bad
environment, which has contaminated their natures both before and
after birth. If these "heirs of unrighteousness" were spoken to as
to the duty they owe to themselves and to society, probably the
replies would be: "As life and society were thrust upon me, why
should I respect either? "Why should I prefer the straight to the
crooked path -- the beautiful in nature to the repulsive? What
advantage is truth to me when I profit by lying? Why may I not
repudiate the tyranny involved in the injunction that I ought to be
virtuous? If I am happy in following my present coarse, why should
I bother about the effects of my conduct upon society?" It will be
readily seen that the man who raises the foregoing questions has no
conception of moral duties and the influence of right action.
Moreover, it is well known that vicious and immoral men are the
first to object to the same kind of conduct which they practice
being directed against themselves. A man may delight in lying, but
no liar likes to be deceived, and no brute in human form desires to
be injured himself. Those who inflict pain upon others are the
first to shudder at the lash being applied to themselves.
Society itself, notwithstanding the boasted influence of the
Bible and the loud professions of Christianity, has peculiar ideas
of right and wrong. It condemns the killing of one man as a
criminal act; but he who kills thousands is made a hero. In the one
case detestation is evoked, while in the other honors are bestowed.
Hence, the only sense to which the soldier is amenable is that of
duty, not of right. The public regard his acts as being performed
for a good purpose -- namely, that of destroying those who are
looked upon as enemies. Our forefathers, we are told, made this
island inhabitable by destroying the wild beasts that once infested
it; but it appears to us that a greater work than that remains to
be done, which is to subdue the wild passions of man. Christianity
has failed to accomplish this desirable result. As the
London daily Times sometime since remarked: "We still seem, after
hard upon nineteen centuries of Christian influence and experience,
to be looking out upon a world in which the ideal of Christianity,
which we all profess to reverence, is worshipped only with the
lips. ... Throughout Europe we find nations armed to the teeth,
devoting their main energies to the perfection of their fighting
material and the victualling of their fighting men, and the keenest
of their intellectual forces to the problem of scientific
destruction. Beneath the surface of society, wherever the pressure
becomes so great as to open an occasional rift, we catch ominous
glimpses of toiling and groaning thousands, seething in sullen
discontent, and yearning after a new heaven and a new earth, to be
realized in a wild frenzy of anarchy by the overthrow of all
existing institutions, and the letting loose of the fiercest
passions of the human animal."
Alas! it is too true that the world, for the most part, has
hitherto worshipped force. Poets, from Homer downwards, have
thrilled thousands with graphic descriptions of scenes of splendor
and of glory. Military renown has been regarded with greater
interest than have the triumphs of ethical culture. Such men as
Alexander the Great and Napoleon have been exalted to the highest
pinnacle of fame, and their deeds have been extolled as if these
men had been the real saviors of the people. This is a mistaken
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
WHY DO RIGHT?
adulation and an undue exaltation, which is opposed to the Secular
idea of right. What can be more wicked than devastating and
depopulating countries in order that one warrior may rival another
in what is called military glory. As John Bright said at Birmingham
in 1858: "I do not care for military greatness or military renown.
I care for the condition of the people among whom I live. ...
Crowns, coronets, miters, military display, the pomp of war, wide
colonies, and a huge empire are, in my view, all trifles, light as
air, and not worth considering, unless with them you can have a
fair share of comfort, contentment, and happiness among the great
body of the people. Palaces, baronial castles, great halls, stately
mansions, do not make a nation. The nation in every country dwells
in the cottage." Right cannot advance if brutal force remains in
the front.
It may be urged that, if our estimate of men in modern
"Christian England" be correct, there is but little chance of
establishing any system of right. Happily, although what we have
written is unquestionably true in some cases, it is not true of all
men. There are other members of the human family who possess
dispositions which enable them to act rightly, so that the world
will be the better for the part they have played in the great drama
of life. These workers for the public good are influenced by higher
laws than Bibles or Parliaments can command or enforce. According
to the Secular view of right, all persons should be instructed in
the duties of citizenship; they should be impressed with the
necessity of taking an active interest in all things that pertain
to the welfare of life, and to consider political and social rights
as well as those that refer merely to ordinary every-day conduct.
Of course, as civilized beings, we require some center of appeal,
some test by which we can determine what is right and what is
wrong. However defective our standard may be considered, and
however varied the results of an appeal thereto may prove, we know
of no higher authority to do right than because it accords with the
general good of society. We regard it as utterly futile to go back
to Bible times, when theology was supreme, to find a test by which
modern conduct shall be regulated. Doing right in those times meant
obeying the will of the despot, and complying with the wish of the
priest. At that period right had no relation to the requirements
and independence of the individual. In the evolution of human life
the chief business of men is to translate might into right, and to
substitute mental freedom for intellectual subjection. Under the
influence of the Secular idea of right, it will be found easier to
speak the truth than to endeavor to deceive. Candid and fair
dealing will be looked upon as the sovereign good of human nature;
and the acquirement of, and adherence to, this commendable habit
will be found less difficult than mastering the technicalities of
law, the reasonings of metaphysicians, or the verbose quibbles of
theologians.
The Secular method of establishing a true conception of right
is to continually augment our experiences with the acquirement of
additional knowledge. Although instances may be quoted of greater
fidelity being found in some of the lower animals than is
perceptible in many men, the power of foreseeing events in the case
of the most intelligent of "the brute creation" is not very
strongly marked. The Secular idea of right is that the best
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
WHY DO RIGHT?
judgment possible should be exercised upon all occasions for the
purpose of discovering what is most calculated to promote
individual and general happiness. Moralists dilate upon the varying
rules of conduct that obtain in different nations and under
different governments. Now, while it is quite true that various
conflicting ideas of right and wrong exist in different countries,
that fact does not exempt people from performing the duty of
considering, in every case, what is the right course to adopt to
secure the welfare of the nation in which they live. The principle
of improvement applies to all conditions and to all races of men.
Take the important feature of family life; on this point opinions
are entertained of the most opposite character. In one country men
believe in one god and in having many wives, while in another
country men believe in three gods and having only one wife. And yet
both beliefs are deemed right. The Secular idea is that we should
study what is right for us to do under the conditions in which we
live. In this country there is no doubt that the development of the
affections, and of a due regard to the rights and enjoyment of
others, points to the conclusion that the union of one man with one
woman is the best solution of the marriage problem. True, the Bible
sanctions polygamy, but with that we are not now concerned;
monogamy is accepted as the best matrimonial arrangement for us
under present conditions.
It is supposed by some persons that it is too late to discover
anything new in morality. This, however, is a mistake, because the
acquirements of modern life impose upon us duties that were unknown
to the ancients, and which require, upon our part, an intelligent
apprehension to enable us to perform them with credit to ourselves
and for the benefit of others. Science and learning are valuable in
proportion as they tend to make better men and women, and inspire
within them a desire to promote general happiness. The endeavor to
advance human felicity is the best evidence of the existence of a
living, active morality, and of a proper sense of right. Let us,
then,
Rest not! life is passing by,
Do and dare before you die.
Something mighty and sublime
Leave behind to conquer time.
Glorious 'tis to live for aye
When these forms have passed away.
Why should we be good? Theologians would have us believe that
the only satisfactory reply to such a query must come from
Christianity. But, as we have already shown, the Christian's
reasons for being good are both selfish and ineffectual. We hope to
show that there are better reasons for goodness than the desire to
please God and to secure everlasting happiness in "realms beyond."
The theological delusion, that religion alone supplies the motive
for personal excellence, has arisen through people entertaining the
erroneous idea that natural means are impotent to cure the evils
that dominate society. It has, however, been discovered that vice
must be dealt with like all else that is human. A supernatural
remedy for moral disease appears to the student of nature no more
reasonable than a supernatural cure for any of the physical
diseases which "flesh is heir to." When a man feels the pangs of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
6
WHY DO RIGHT?
some physical malady, he knows that there is some derangement in
the organ in which it occurs; in addition to applying a remedy, if
he be wise, he will endeavor to discover the cause, so as to avoid
the malady in future. Now, Secularists consider that the same
coarse should be taken with moral diseases, which often arise from
a morbid condition of the brain, produced sometimes by the bad
arrangements of society, or through not acting up to the proper
duties of life. Virtue and vice are not mere accidents of the time,
but are as much the consequence of the operation of natural laws as
the falling of a stone or the growth of a flower. The causes of
crime should be investigated as carefully as the causes of cholera
and other epidemics have been. The physical and the moral are more
closely connected than is generally supposed, and the influence of
the one upon the other is beyond all doubt very great. Man's mental
and moral natures both depend upon material organs, and are
therefore influenced by physical forces; and it is not unusual for
the same causes that generate disease to produce crime. So little,
however, do people study the relation of mind to brain that vice
prevails where, with a little judicious thought and action, virtue
might be found. The Secularist acknowledges these important facts,
and, expecting no supernatural help, he goes earnestly to work
himself. Holding that whatever happens occurs in accordance with
some law, he deems it his business to endeavor to ascertain what
that law is, that he may turn it to some practical account.
We think that with the extensive knowledge which now exists,
allied with intellectual culture, it is not difficult to
demonstrate that man ought to do his duty for reasons which belong
alone to this life. By the word "duty" we here mean an obligation
to perform actions that have a tendency to promote the personal and
general welfare of the community. This obligation is imposed upon
us by the requirements of society. For instance, the Secular
obligation to speak the truth is obtained from experience, which
teaches that lying and deceit tend to destroy that confidence
between man and man which has been found to be necessary to
maintain the stability of mutual societarian intercourse.
Again, our obligation to live good lives is derived from the
fact that, as we are here and are recipients of certain advantages
from society, we therefore deem it a duty to repay, by life
service, the benefits thus received. To avoid this obligation,
either by self-destruction or by any other means, except we are
driven to such a course by what have been termed "irresistible
forces," would be, in our opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable. As
to the word "ought," the only explanation orthodox Christianity
gives to this term is a thoroughly selfish one. It says you "ought"
to do so and so for "Christ's sake," that through him you may avoid
eternal perdition. On the other hand, Secularism finds the meaning
of "ought" in the very nature of things, as involving duty, and
implying that something is due to others. As the Rev. Minot J.
Savage, in his 'Morals of Evolution,' aptly pats it: "Man ought --
what? -- ought to fulfil the highest possibility of his being;
ought to be a man; ought to be all and the highest that being a man
implies. Why? That is his nature. He ought to fulfil the highest
possibilities of his being; ought not simply to be an animal. Why?
Because there is something in him more than an animal. He ought not
simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he ought to be
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
7
WHY DO RIGHT?
that. Why? Because that does not exhaust the possibilities of his
nature: he is capable of being something more, something higher
than a brain. We say he ought to be a moral being. Why? Because it
is living out his nature to be a moral being. He ought to live as
high, grand, and complete a life as it is possible for him to live,
and he ought to stand in such relation to his follow men that he
shall aid them in doing the same. Why? Just the same as in all
these other cases: because this, and this only, is developing the
full and complete stature of a man, and he is not a man in the
highest, truest, deepest sense of the word until he is that and
does that; he is only a fragment of a man so long as he is less and
lower."
The careful and impartial student of nature will discover that
therein continuous law is to be found, but no accidents or
contingencies. And what we call the moral state is one wherein man
is enabled to recognize the wisdom of compliance with this law. It
is quite true that men may refuse to obey the moral law, but, if
they do, they must suffer in consequence. This is one reason why
men should be good, inasmuch as the fact of being so brings its own
reward. It not only secures immunity from suffering, and adds to
the healthfulness of society, but it exalts those who obey the
moral law in the estimation of the real noblemen of nature. A man
of honor -- one whose word is his bond, who practices virtue in his
daily life -- wins the respect and confidence of all who know him,
and he thereby sets an example that will be useful to emulate; and
he at the same time acquires for himself a tranquility of mind
known only to the consistent devotee of human goodness. What is
called Christian morality has no sanction in merely natural
sentiments and associations. Nobility of action is supposed by
orthodox believers to be the result of a "fire kindled in the soul
by the Holy Ghost." St. Paul is reported to have entertained the
grovelling notion that, if this life is "the be-all and end-all,"
then "we are of all men the most miserable"; "therefore," says he,
"let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Here the problematical
happiness in a problematical future is put forth as a higher
incentive to goodness than the wish to so regulate our conduct that
it will produce certain beneficial results in our present
existence. Persons who share the views of St. Paul, as set forth in
I Cor. xv., will derive but little pleasure from the virtue of this
world. The satisfaction which should be felt in benefiting mankind
independently of theology falls unheeded on orthodox believers.
They fail to experience happiness simply by the performance of good
works. Virtue, to them, has no charms if not prompted by the "love
of God." Nobility, heroism generosity, devotion, are all ignored
unless stimulated by the hope of future bliss. Christians deny the
possibility of virtue receiving its full reward on earth. If they
think their faith will conduct them safely to the "next world,"
they appear to have no trouble about its effects in this. A man who
is good only because he is commanded to be so, or through fear of
punishment after death, is not in touch with the philosophy of
modern ethics. The true moral person is one who does his duty,
regardless of personal reward or punishment in any other world. The
Secular motive for being good is that this world shall be the
better for the lives we have led, and for the deeds we have
performed.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
8
WHY DO RIGHT?
Regard for the moral law is not based upon a negation, neither
is it a mere question of expediency, but rather a positive acting
principle, working for practical goodness. A really moral man is
one who is interested in the well-being of others -- one who has
discovered that he belongs to the family of men, the social
advancement of which is dependent, more or less, upon each other.
Unsocial beings are those who care for nobody but themselves, and
whose sense of right-doing consists in studying their own interests
without concerning themselves about the welfare of others. Emerson
said: "I once knew a philosopher of this kidney. His theory was,
'Mankind is a damned rascal. All the world lives by humbug; so will
I.'" Fortunately, individuals of this type are becoming fewer and
fewer, and are being replaced by men and women in whom are to be
found aspirations for the true, the useful, and the elevating
functions of life. To such members of the human family as these it
can be made evident that truth and honor are essential to their
well-being. and that doing good is an absolute necessity to the
formation and the perpetuation of a society based on confidence and
trust. The virtue of veracity is the foundation of the true social
fabric. Law, commerce, friendship, and all the embellishments of
life rest upon the great principle of veracity. It is this which
gives the surest stability to all moral obligation. While being
faithful to ourselves, we should never fail to manifest fidelity in
our associations with all members of the community. Our aim ought
always to be to so serve others that we may help ourselves, and to
so serve ourselves as to be helpful to others. As Pope puts it: --
Self-love and social is the same."
Emerson has said: "The mind of this age has fallen away from
theology to morals. I conceive it to be an advance." Undoubtedly
this is true, for the intellect of the age is more than ever
finding its justification for being good in the results of action,
rather than in the commands of creeds and dogmas. The inspiration
to goodness is now recognized as coming from earth, not heaven;
from man, not God. As a recent writer well puts the fact: "It is
not a belief in an arbitrary personal God which ennobles a life.
Most of the burglars and murderers, most of the unjust monopolists
and cruel sweaters, believe in 'God.' It is goodness that ennobles
a life, and goodness is not necessarily associated with godliness.
It is not a hope of heaven that makes a life beautiful. Many who
believe in heaven are very hard to live with here. It is
gentleness, kindness, considerations, friendliness, love, that make
a life beautiful; and these qualities are not necessarily
associated with a hope of heaven. It is not piety that wins esteem.
There are many pious persons whom you would not trust with a five
pound note. It is fair dealing, honesty, and fidelity that win
esteem and they are not associated with piety."
Darwin, in his 'Decent of Man,' gives potent reasons why we
should live good lives. He points out that the possession of moral
qualities is a great aid in the struggle for existence; that people
with strong moral feelings are more likely to win in the race of
life than persons who are destitute of such feelings. Goodness has
in itself its own recommendation, inasmuch as it secures for its
recipients peace of mind, temperance in their habits, and a sense
of justice in their dealings with others. Men of honor, whose lives
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
9
WHY DO RIGHT?
are regulated by the principle of integrity, furnish the best of
all reasons for being good. They are happy in the consciousness of
the nobility of their own nature, and they derive consolation from
the knowledge that they render valuable service to others by the
dignified example they set. and the exalted lives they live. Those
who can see the worth of virtue and of truth in human character are
imbued with a spirit of emulation; they desire to be associated
with a superior order of society. Such members of the community can
readily see that without "confidence and trust" the commercial
world would collapse. The same principle applies to the whole of
human life, for it is not simply that "honesty is the best policy,"
but that it is the only policy which will secure a tranquil state
of existence. Rectitude is the source of self-reliance in life and
at death. Men who are able to distinguish the good from the bad are
attracted by honor and refinement. They shun malignity and
vulgarity, and are repelled by whit is vicious and demoralizing,
Men should be good because goodness qualifies them or friendship,
and wins for them the esteem of the best of their kind. Further, it
awakens within them a sense of what is most fitted to enable them
to adopt an elevated mode of living. They become practical
believers in that which is just and useful, and they are thereby
inspired to strive to realize their ideal born of newer and higher
perceptions of truth. Let the lover of goodness once be admitted
into the presence of the intellectually gifted and morally heroic
and life will present to him a mew aspect. When we read of
Plutarch's heroes; of Greece with her art and her literature; of
Rome with her Cicero and her Antoninus; and of the muster-roll of
men and women whose memories are surrounded with a halo of
intellectual brilliancy and ethical glory, we no longer regard the
world as the habitation only of moral invalids and of mental
imbeciles. On the contrary, a higher faith in the potency and
grandeur of human goodness is evoked, exalted thoughts are inspired
within us, and we are induced to believe that goodness will be more
than ever appreciated for its own sake, and that virtue will be
honored and revered for its intrinsic merits.
While admitting that the moral brightness of life is some-what
tarnished by the base, the brutal, the suicidal, and the insane
characters that are still found in our midst, we believe in the law
of progress and the work of reform. We recognize a powerful motive
for being good in the belief that such conditions may be produced
that shall tend to remove depravity and to establish righteousness.
Such disasters as the cholera, and numerous other epidemics that
once made uncontrolled havoc upon society, have been checked by the
application of suitable scientific remedies; why, then, should not
moral evils be made to yield to judicious treatment? When men
understand that moral law is as certain as physical law, and as
necessary to be obeyed if we are to have a healthy state in human
ethics, the reformation of the community will be capable of
achievement. Whether we regard man as the creature or the creator
of circumstances, or as both, it is certain that his organism and
its environment act and re-act upon each other, While intelligence
indicates the best way to pursue in life, it is obvious that
circumstances must be such as to permit of our pursuing that way.
From what we know of human nature, it appears to us necessary that
it should be surrounded with inducements that have the power to
draw out the best that is in it. It has been well said that man is
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
10
WHY DO RIGHT?
a bundle of habits, therefore moral forces become strong as they
become a part of the habit of life. We cannot reasonably expect the
State to be ruled by right and love unless those virtues exist in
the citizens. No nation has ever attempted to live like a society -
of friends -- without jails, policemen, etc. -- because the idea of
moral duty has been only partially realized. In proportion as we
properly understand the nature of goodness, and regulate our lives
by its genius, so shall we be governed by ideas instead of by
force. The misfortune of our present societarian condition is the
difficulty attending its improvement. Although, like trees, we grow
and expand from within, there seems, as it were, an iron band
around us, that prevents our free expansion and our full growth.
The quality of our acts may be good in a certain degree, but it is
not of the required strength. The quality has been impoverished
through neglect and theological adulteration; and what is now
required is persistent and intelligent conduct, that shall purify
life, and rid it of the legacy of the ignorance, the folly, and the
superstition of the dark past. Our hope is in purification; we want
earnestness and candor to take the place of the apathy and
hypocrisy which have so long held sway. Then real goodness will
illuminate the hearts of men, and virtue will shed its lustre upon
the emancipated humanity of the world.
Why should we be good? The answer, from a Secular standpoint,
is: Because goodness, in itself, is the basis of all true
happiness; it is the progenitor of peace, order, and progress. To
be good is a duty we owe to society as well as to ourselves. In
virtue alone are to be found those elements that ennoble character
and exalt a nation. The unselfish love of goodness, and the desire
to acquire a practical knowledge of the obligations of life, have
hitherto been too much confined to the few, while the many have
neglected to strive to realize the highest advantages of existence.
The cause of this misfortune is not difficult to discover. It is
apparent in the radical evil underlying the whole of the
theological creeds of Christendom -- namely, an objection to
concentrate attention on the present life, apart from
considerations of any existence "hereafter." The mistake in the
theological world is that its members regulate their conduct and
control their actions almost exclusively by the records of the past
or the conjectures of a future. Their rules of morality, their
systems of theology, and their modes of thought are too much a
reflex of an imperfect antiquity. Those who cannot derive
sufficient inspiration from this source fly into the fancied
boundaries of another world -- a world which is enveloped in
obscurity, and upon which experience can throw no light. History
has been subverted by this theological error from its proper
purpose. Instead of being the interpreter of ages, it has become
the dictator of nations; instead of being a guide to the future, it
is really the master of the present. The proceedings of bygone
times are thus made the standard of appeal in these. The wisdom of
the first century is regarded as the infallible rule of the
nineteenth. The watchword of the Church is "As you were," rather
than "As you are." Christian theology hesitates to recognize active
progressive principles, but holds that faith was stereotyped
eighteen hundred years ago and that all subsequent actions and
duties must be shaped in its mold. Secularism prefers the healthy
and progressive sentiments thus expressed by J.R. Lowell: --
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
11
WHY DO RIGHT?
New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.
Orthodox Christianity appeals to the desires and fears of
mankind. It is presented to the world under the two aspects of hope
and dread. Some persons regard it as a system of love, offering
them a pleasant future, stimulating within them hopes delightful to
indulge, and supplying their imagination with splendors enchanting
to contemplate. On the other hand, many reject Christianity because
it contains gloomy forebodings, presenting to them a being who is
represented as constantly sowing the seeds of discord and
unhappiness among society, who has nothing but frowns for the
smiles of life, and whose chief business it is to crush and awe the
minds of men with fear and apprehension. If Christianity furnishes
its believers with hopes of heaven to buoy them up, it also gives
them the dread of hell to cast them down. The one is as certain as
the other. As soon as a child begins to lisp at its mother's knee,
its young mind is impressed with the notion that there is "a heaven
to gain, and a Hell to avoid." As the child grows to maturity, this
notion is strengthened by false education and religions discipline,
until at last the opinion is formed which frequently culminates in
making the victim an abject slave to a fancy-created heaven and an
inhumanly-pictured hell. Christians sometimes assert that to
deprive them of their hope in heaven would be to rob them of their
principal consolation, If this be correct, so much the worse for
their faith. Better have no consolation than to derive it from a
creed which condemns to eternal perdition the great majority of the
human kind.
The true object of rewards and punishments should be to
encourage virtue and to deter vice. Most, if not all, of the
religions of the world have employed these agencies in the
promulgation of their tenets, not, however, as a rule, in the
correct form. Theologians have connected their systems of rewards
and punishments with the profession of arbitrary creeds and dogmas
that have little or no bearing on the promotion of virtue or the
prevention of vice. The final reward offered by Christianity is
made dependent on beliefs more than on actions. This is unjust,
inasmuch as many persons are unable to accept the belief that is
supposed to secure the reward. Moreover, according to the Christian
system, the same kind of encouragement is held out to the criminal
who, after a life of crime, repents and acknowledges his faith in
Christ, as to the philanthropist whose career has been one of
excellence and goodness
Equally defective and objectionable is the system of
punishment as taught by Christians, making, as it does, correction
to proceed from a motive of revenge rather than from a desire to
reform. Through life we should never cherish revenge, nor harbor
malice. To forgive is a virtue all should endeavor to practice.
Governments who desire to win national confidence do not seek to
make the chief feature of their punitive laws of a retaliative
Spirit; they aim rather to enact measures that tend to the
reformation of the criminal. Now, the drawback to the threatened
punishment of Christianity is, that it offers no incentive to
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
12
WHY DO RIGHT?
reformation, for, when once in hell, the victim must for ever
remain, and there no opportunity is afforded for improvement, and
no facility offered for repentance. It cannot be said that the
sufferings of those in the "bottomless pit" exercise any beneficial
influence upon those on earth, inasmuch as we cannot witness their
torture, and, if we could, instead of inspiring within us love and
obedience, doubtless it would excite detestation towards the being
who, possessing the power, refused to exercise it to prevent
mankind enduring such barbarous cruelty. The rejected of heaven are
here represented as being the victims of unutterable anguish: as
having to endure tortures which no mind can fully conceive, no pen
can adequately portray.
This Christian doctrine of punishment is based upon a
principle opposed to all good government. It allows no grades in
virtue or vice. It divides the world into two classes -- the sheep
and the goats, leaving no intermediate course. Now, mankind are not
either all good or all bad; there are degrees of innocence and
guilt in each. Horace recognized this; hence he said: --
Let rules be fixed that may our rage contain,
And punish faults with a proportioned pain.
Punishment is valuable only so far as it tends to the reformation
and the protection of society. It has been shown that hell fire
must fail in the former, and experience proves that it is quite as
impotent for the latter. Our law courts are constantly revealing
the fact that those who profess the strongest faith in future
retribution have frequently been remarkable for savage brutality
and uncontrolled cruelty.
If it be asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adherents as
being superior to theological and other speculative theories of the
day? the answer is, (1) Because Secularists believe its moral basis
to be more definite and practical than other existing ethical
codes; and (2) because Secular teachings appear to them to be more
reasonable and of greater advantage to general society than the
various theologies of the world, and that of orthodox Christianity
in particular. That Secular teachings are superior to those of
orthodox Christianity the following brief contrast will show.
Christian conduct is controlled by the ancient, and supposed
infallible, rules of the Bible; Secular action is regulated by
modern requirements and the scientific and philosophical
discoveries of the practical age in which we live. Christianity
enjoins as an essential duty of life to prepare to die; Secularism
says, learn how to live truthfully, honestly, and usefully, and you
need not concern yourself with the "how" to die. Christianity
proclaims that the world's redemption can be achieved only through
the teachings of one person; Secularism avows that such teachings
are too impracticable and limited in their influence for the
attainment of the object claimed, and that improvement, general and
individual, is the result of the brain power and physical exertions
of the brave toilers of every country and every age who have
labored for human advancement. Christianity threatens punishment in
another world for the rejection of speculative views in this;
Secularism teaches that no penalty should follow the holding of
sincere opinions, as uniformity of belief is impossible. According
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
13
WHY DO RIGHT?
to Christianity, as taught in the churches and chapels, the
approval of God and the rewards of heaven are to be secured only
through faith in Jesus of Nazareth; whereas the philosophy of
Secularism enunciates that no merit should be attached to such
faith, but that fidelity to principle and good service to man
should win the right to participate in any advantages either in
this or any other world.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives little
or no assistance from orthodox Christianity. Notwithstanding the
fact that Broad Churchism or Latitudinarianism has begun to make
some concessions to reason and scientific progress, and however
strongly apparent may be the desire for compromise on the part of
the theologians, there are still many of the most distinctive
doctrines of orthodoxy which are most decidedly opposed to the
standard of modern ethics and influence. Such, for example, is the
doctrine of vicarious atonement, where paternal affection is
ignored, and where the innocent is made to suffer for the guilty;
that right faith is superior to right conduct apart from such
belief; and, most especially, that unjust and equity-defying dogma
of eternal condemnation. It is really beyond the scope of such a
system as the orthodox one to promote the moral development of
humanity. This can only be effectually done by the action of those
social, political, and intellectual forces to which we are
indebted, as it were, for the building up of Man from the very
first institution of society. These have been, are, and ever must
be, the moral edifiers of the human race. Without them true
progress is impossible, since it is by them that we are what we
are. It is: (1) the social activities that have led to the
formation, maintenance, and improvement of human society; (2) the
political activities that have led to the formation, maintenance,
and improvement of the general government, to the establishment of
States or nations, and to the recognition of the mutual rights and
duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual activities that
have led to the interchange of human thoughts, to the formation of
literature, to the pursuits of science and art, to the banishment
of ignorance and the decay of superstition, to the diffusion of
knowledge, and, finally, to all mental progress.
It is said that, without a fixed rule for conduct, all
guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not so; Secularism recognizes
a safe and never-erring basis for moral action, which is taken, not
from Revelation, but from the Roman law of the Twelve Tables, which
laid down the broad general maxim that "the well-being of the
people is the supreme law." This may be taken as a fundamental
principle for all time and all nations. The kind of action which
will produce such well-being depends, of coarse, upon individual
and national circumstances, varied in their character and
diversified in their influence. This progressive morality is the
principle of the Utilitarian ethics which now govern the civilized
world. It is not merely the individual, but society at large, that
is considered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian existence
may be compared to a beehive. What does the apiarian discover in
his studies? Not that every individual bee labors only for
individual necessities. No; but that all is subordinated to the
general welfare of the hive. If the drones increase, they are
expelled or restricted, and well would it be for our human society
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
14
WHY DO RIGHT?
if all drones who resisted improvement were banished from among us.
In the moral world, as in religious societies, there are too many
Nothingarians -- individuals who thrive through the good conduct of
others, while they themselves do nothing to contribute to the store
of the ethical hive. The morality of men, their love, their
benevolence, their kindly charity, their mutual tolerance and long-
suffering -- all these spring directly from their long-acquired and
developed experience. As the poet of Buddhism sings: --
Pray not, the Darkness will not brighten! ask
Nought from the Silence, for it cannot speak!
Vex not your mournful minds with pious pains: --
Ah, brothers, sisters! seek
Nought from the helpless gods by gift and hymn,
Nor bribe with blood, nor feed with fruit and cakes;
Withist yourselves deliverance must be sought;
Each man his prison makes!
**** ****
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
**** ****
The Bank of Wisdom is a collection of the most thoughtful,
scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of
suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the
Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our
nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and
religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to
the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --
The Free Market-Place of Ideas.
The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books, magazines,
newspapers, pamphlets, etc. please contact us, we need to give them
back to America. If you have such books please send us a list that
includes Title, Author, publication date, condition and price.
**** ****
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
15

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink