The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-08-04
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Decrease Of Attendance at the
Services Yesterday.
REV. E. G. SMITHS DISCOURSE.
The Warm Weather Kept Many People
frsn Worship Of
the Unitarian Pastor.

The preachers noticed decided decrease
q their congregations yesterday, which
they correctly attributed to the warm
wenther and the consequent desire of the
people TO keep out of crowded churches.
The day was unusually warm and many
more people went to the lakes than went
g church Nearly all the ministers oecu-
pied thefs own puipits and there were only
= lev visiting ministers in the pulpits.
AT THE UNITARIAN CHURCH.
Ees. Smiths Discourse ON "The New
Ethics and the Old Ethics.v
The morning services at the Unitarian
church. Seventh street, near Union, were
conducted by Rev. Earnest C. Smith. the
pastor. His discourse was upon s'The New
Ethics and the Old Ethics.n He took his
text from:
xcclesisstes, xii:14-"For God shall bring
sven work INTO Judgment, with every hidden
thing. whsther IL be good or whether 1t be
He said:
The faith expressed in our text has been held
~ some even In the worst ages OF tho world.
Among al the things that have proved transit.
orr the idea Of duty has stood fast rs one OF the
things which could not be shaken. 1t gives us
new strength when we think that this same
simple instinct OF right ard WRONG, which
makes NJ do our act today, is precisely the same
instinct that made men honest and kept them
pure before the flood. Many of the great lead
err Of today tell us that when q man comes 10
a, confused aud perplexed. asking. 'How can
must answer simply and strongly, sDo right;
do your duty and you have given him ct least
one sure thing among all that is INSURE
Yet 1t Is true that the morality of the present
age ID assuming . type different in some re-
spects from any that has been recognized in the
past We hear. not only OF the New Theoi-
ogy.o but also of the eNew Rthics," which TO
many seems like no ethics at all. and to largely
account for the deep and widespread immorali-
ties which beset us on every side. To some 1t
seems as ii duty itself were shaken to its
very fouudauons, and the outlook hope
l9ss, as il the guiding star of duty
had given place to o Pickering viii o. the wisp.
continually changing its place and leading US
farther into the bog of doubt ard despair.
aHOw are two kinds of ethics possibleg Does
not one destroy the other? Which shall we
trustfv These are serious questions which be-
Get us Let us try then, contrast the new
ethics aud the s'old ethics" letting those terms
stand for general principles rather than specific
codes.
absolute, while the new is relative. The old
morality spoke with Thus saith the Lord
the new says "Yoa will get moro happiness"
One seeks no authority beyond itself; the other
asks why should we do right, and PROCESSES will
ingness to obey If some reason for obedience can
be shown.
The breach between the two is widened when
the new morality answers its own question and
tells why We should obey the commands OF
duty. We should do right. 1t says, becauss it is
useful. Utility Is the standard in all theories
which represent the new morality; and utili-
tarianism il what the old morality most abhors.
The contrast is between the right and the ex-
pedient
Now this principle OF ntilitarianism may lead
in one of two ways According TO one, right ac-
ton is based on the advantage resulting, d.
rectlv or indirectly. to the actor: in the other,
Npon the advantage resulting to the community.
But IL il easy to see that the first gives moral
character whatever to actions, leads TO no law
of more than individual application; for If per-
eonal advantage is the end In view. there is no
guarantee that the individual should not seek
20 gain his ends in what seems to him the most
direct way. On the other hand, II advantage to
the community be the end assumed the ques-
ton ct issue Is begged. What we want IS some
strong reason why the Individual, at the cost of
his own personal advantage. should seek the
public good. Again. this theory lacks the ele-
ment OF strong and instantaneous authority.
The moral law has largely owed its power 10
the fact that 1t holds its seat in the secret re-
cesses OF the nature. from which its commands
lssue with an authority not to be questioned or
gainsaid.
The new ethics has met this real difdculty by
IN appeal to the principle of heredity, through
the workings OF which the sense of utility and
Of the needs of society has been deepened and
strengthened, so that. born with the individual
and twined into every hhre of his being, it acts
with mysterious authority not TO be cues
toned or explained. But this only widens the
breach between the old morality and the new
The old morality insists that the moral instinct
vas one OF the primal instincts OF man; or else
that the moral law is the direct voice OF God in
1.-THE soul The new ethics says the moral law is
the outgrowth of experience, having its source
in the circumst ances of human life, and not in
the life itself.
Furths-. the new morality having accepted
usefulness as the measure Of right. we are led to
ask the further question, useful for what?"
Useful for happiness is the commonest answer;
but that means nothing in this relation. Ifhap-
piness IL the end and test. by what authority do
you say that the saint is better than the sem
sualist? Both seek happiness: both claim that
they get what they seek. What test has the
utilitarian at hand to decide that one form of
happiness Is preferable 20 the other. The old
morality has no difficulty in finding such q test:
the new has here Its hardest task
The only rational answer TO the question.
suseful for whatg' is found in the philosophy
which accepts the principle of natural selection.
"uscfui for existence is the final answer 20
which utilitsranlsm is driven. We cannot here
use the terms higher and lower, cannot infuse
any moral quality into the term existence ex-
cept In so lar as highly-organized nature or n
moral nature should prove better able to main.
tain itself in the struggle for existence. This
brings us TO another most striking antithesis be-
tween the old morality an. the new The iosmer
said man existed for the sake of fulfilling the
moral law: the latter says he does right in order
that he may exist.
Can any system which makes mere existence
its final goal furnish basis for any system OF
practical duties whatever; or do its demands
vary rs much as the outward circumstances ~
human lifeg Does n,t the survival Of tha
ATTEST" in the Darwinian sense ofteutirneS IA
velop types Of character which are far fro,r
dftest In the light Of the old moral s,snaar,3ss
Many municipality or state is SO constitutes
that the political boss, rather than the broad.
minded statesman. IN "htied, TO succeed In
deed the societies where the men of nurps.
heart and win are fitted TO achieve the greatest
uuccess are extremely rare. What them Is that
che ends No; the principle OF natural selection
hss broader scope than that-it governs not
onlv individuals. but communities as well In
in narrower application. in q given society IL
nav thrust honesty and honor 10 the wall. NAV
hrinr Nero or Boss Buckley to the nosition
81 power and command, but in its broader au-