The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-08-04


what the prophets ann sares of the world have
deemed righteous. The new morality does not
seek 70 undermine virtue in its old sense, but
strives TO attain it Mr.. Huxley's moral code Is
e nigh and pure as tnsto. any deyotee OF the
old ethics Spite 81 their almost dismefrical OPP
position in theory, the two systems are practic-
ally working together towards the same emo
What shall we ssy, then, when we ind that
two systems. starting from antagonistic stand
points, arrive At conclusions practically ID ac-
cordg May IL not be that both are needed. that
they represent different aspects OF the same
thing. grow OUT Of opposing. but fnseparaoie
tendencies OF ifs? IL taEee two abutments On
opposite sides OF the stream 20 support the arch
that SPANS the chssm. May Il not be 50 hereI
think 1t il. III a novel and unexpected form
we have here the oil struggle between fate ana
free will, two principles apparently utterly an
tagonistic. yet recogniz In the practical NE
of all Logically they destroy each other; prac-
tically, they exist side by side.
One of toe trofoanaett suggestions OF our
time Is thar which first pointed out
that the systems we have beea con-
sidcring eE,b ny each one OF these principles
The old morality represents the idea OF freedom
The new that OF necessity. According to the
old. every man Is master of himself. according
10 the new, he Is the creature of circumstances
Now In lite we practically take both points OF
view. We believe that the character OF child
ultima ely rests upon its own choice, yet par
cnts seek by education aud surroundings 10 lead
the child into the ways OF virtue and protect 1t
from sllurcmsnts to vice as If the child were
wholly at the mercy OF these surrounding In
Huencet
Each expresses partial truth; each needs the
otsler; and until the-world old struggle between
freedom and necessity Is ct an end, each system
will have its work 10 do. For though they do
work out into final accord with each other, the
fact that they embody different principles in
cal working OF the two types OF morality. There
10 a difference of emphasis which makes them
seem more distinct than they are.
The old morality Is stern and pitiless TO the Of
fender. Itfhrows the burden of his misdeeds
wholly npon the wrong-doer The new is slow
10 cast blame upon a man; IL finds palliations
and excuses. laws the burden of guilt and re-
sponsibility, not so much the man himself as
upon the society or conditions that made him
what he IL.
The old morality is impractical, leaving its
commands to fulfill themselves The new is
practical II seeks so to arrange the circum-
stances OF each life that its demands shall in
evitabiy be fulfilled. IL devises schemes
like Beiamys Looking Backward" in
which it Is sought to remove the present OBJ
staeles 10 noble living.
The cid morality, though SO radical in some
respects, making no compromise with sin or
vice, Is often blindiy and stubbornly conserya-
1--we, couiCuuuiuk tfduitlOns duu pfe!uulces Win
intuifions. While its test of right and wrong
is wholly inward. II sometimes adopts an insti-
tuition as divinely given, and seals with its con-
demnation all who dare lay hands upon it. The
new morality is absolutely radical aud fearless.
II has a text-utilty. This il applies in all
cases. No claims of age or sanctity weigh with
II. There is nothing it does not bring to its bar
and judge.
The old morality claims that the moral sense
existed fully formed from the first. The only
historical change possible was, therefore,
degradation more or lees complete. The new
morality says that the moral principle had
beginning In the world, and tries TO trace les
development ald history there. II does not ac-
count for the existence of the principle any
more than natural selection accounts for life,
but 1t does search out the conditions which
have controlled the form of its manifestation
in the world.
Let us now look at some of the practical
methods of the new ethics Utility, we must
remember, is the main end in view, so virtue
with it Is not an abstract thing but is striving
toward certain definite practical results. 1t
addresses itself to delicafs social problems more
courageously than the old ethics. In regard to
the institution oil marriage IL takes q bold
stand, recos1lfns no superiority or isferi0rity
band and wife as two persons, each with special
interests that lie outside the common life of the
family. The divine right of kings is super
seeded by the divine right OF the people. The
old morality rather looked on poverty as q
means OF salvation. The poor were regarded as
near the Kingdom of heaven, and almsgiving
to the poor helped purchase entrance to heaven
for the richs so poverty was regarded as good
and necessary thing. The new morality regards
poverty as a curse and in many cases q sin. II
doesn't so much wish to amelorate il as to abol-
ish it, Charity. with it. is giving opportunity
rather than money. 1t prefers giving man a
chance, arranging circumstances so he can
earn his own living TO paying pitance to him
as charity II it gives to the sick or needy il
gives flowers and fruits where the old would
give tracts and prayers. 1t believes greatly in
education, in organization. and the power of
conditions to mould men. II desires TO use the
laws OF heredity TO achieve the best results. 1t
believes il is more important TO prevent the
criminal classes from having children than TO
reclaim individuals of that class 1t would treat
vice by removing, as much as possible. the con.
ditions which foster vice, and replacing them
by conditions which foster virtue. Instead of
arbitrarily repressing with strong hand, il would
lead and guide into new fields opening every
where the Peoples Cluh," the "Holly Tree
Inn" the social Palace"
Perhaps some have been confused at the sharp
separation between the old and new, and have
thought at one moment they accepted one only
to fnd, a moment later. that some cher
ished plan OF theirs was under the other head
Ing. Now what does that mean? Simply this
that while the methods of the new morality are
indispensable, they are not sufficient
The freedom of choice. on which the
old morality INSISTS is vital and essential in
every moral act, giving, in fact. the moral quail
ity to the act. The appeal to this in some form,
the sense of individual responsibility, of being
master OF himself and of his destiuies the sense
of the absoluteness OF right, must form the high
est part of any system of moral training worthy
the name. We need something more than a
quiet and clustered virtue. something that
stands the strain OF temptation in its most illu.
sorry form. We may make the choce easy and
natural ii we will. but the choice is, morally
speaking, the vital point OF every act
1t is possible 10 unite the vital features Of
what have characterized as the new morality
and the old. Some of the features of the new
morality are already manifest in the teachings
OF Jesus. His treatment of the Sabbath was dis.
tincty utilitarian, even 10 the point OF absolute
radicalism. The teaching OF Paul. with regard
to the whole Jewish law, was also absolutely
radical The gracious mildness of the new
morality was also manifest in Jesus lack of the
censorious spirit in his saying Father. forgive
them, for they know not what they do" and in
Paul's word. Consider myself, lest thou also be
tempted" The New Testament is also full of
the consciousness OF personal responsibility
which is the heart OF the old morality.
Diverse as the elements are, Christianity is
large enough to embrace them both Love is
the "fnlhlling OF the law TO which both forms
OF etaics point, the glorious superstructure
which spans the stream ef life. the power which
~ last reconciies the sense OF freedom and the
sense of necessity.