The morning times., 1896-06-21
2inqlsTaxG Go!umn Gl !! Q
The Times undertakes no RESPONSE
bility for views exprcsscd In this
pEMoRAIIzArIoNi4 OF POLITICS.

/ DECENTRALIZATION OF POLITICS.
To denloralize politics is to attempt the
i conduct OF public affairs without the
guidance OF any definite moral principle.
In the preface To his Data OF Ethics. Her
bert Spencer says
Few things can happen more disastrous
than the decay and death OF regulative
system no longer fit, before another and
filter regulative system has grown up to
replace it. Most OF those who reject the
current creed appear to assume that the
controlling agency fpsnished by 1t may be
| safely thrown aside and the vacancy left
| untitled by any other controlling agency"
Mr.. Spencer, whoIhid all he could to de-
i stroy the foundation Of, ancient principles
OF morality, WINS, nevertheless, so much
| impressed by the dangers to civilization at
tendant upon tile decay or neglect OF sys-
tens OF morals. that he hastened to pub
lish his Data OF Ethics far In advance OF its
regular order in his scheme of philosophy.
Whether this book has tended to avert the
danger may be questioned; but there can
scarcely be any question that the danger
| exists.
Upon the subjectof ethics, the scientific
world may be said to be in a state of
chaos and anarchy. No authority is rec
| ognized as conclusive or final; constant
conflict OF opinion Is raging, and the
popular mind, more than ever before at
| tracted to science by its brilliant dis
coveries in other fields, naturally turns
to 1t for light upon the serious question
| OF how to live as social beings. We find
| ourselves hedged about by an environment
OF increasing compile kitty, and we want to
| know how to adjust ourselves to IT. II
| right and wrong are not principles de-
| rived from supernatural sources we want
to know whether they are principles Of
nature and reason or mere fictons OF the
imagination by which the strong are
| "a mil
! To the naturalist all things are natural.
| He is, therefore, logically bound to assume
that moral principles heretofore SUPP IOsed
TO be OF divine origin are really principles
of nature Or NO principles at all. The
danger is in the tendency to abandon
principles altogether. As illustrative of
this. we recently heard a weli.known
scientist in this city publicly declare that
| science of ethics was impossible be.
cause it involved no natural principles
upon which we can agree. Another WASH
| iDgton scientist, in an essay severely
| criti cisin 8 Spence ethical writings,
| says:
1T is surprising that mind so logical
could have failed TO see that ethics is
not an independent science at all.''
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND
WRONG.
Other writer's, following in the wake
tically denying any natural distinction
| between right and wrong. For instance,
Mr.. John Morley, a well.xnown English
| writer, says:
"A natural right is mere Pigment OF
| the imagination. Mathew Arnold sane.
| toned the proposition that all rights are
created by law"
Moral rules" says Van Buren, Denslow,
"arc doctrines established by the strong
1 fnr government nf hp Wenkn
II such propositions as these. and many
| similar ones that might be quoted. are
| OF any practical value or embody any
| living truth. why not proclaim them from
the housetops? How would it do for the
| practical politician to say this to his con-
stituents.
Fellow citizens-I know you are beav-
| lily burdeped by taxes. but as the taxes
are imposed by law. I can make no plea
| in your behalf. because oil rights are
| created by law. and therefore whatever
is legal ia right"
Let US turn back a little in time and
| consider tie school. of ethics developed
| by Bentham. In this we apparently find
an earnest desire to! discoyer. some tangible
| guidance to legislation. The principle
enunciated by Bentham is that legislation
should be 30 shaped as to secure the great
| est happiness 81 the greatest number. But
| serious difficulties, co nfront us in tue
attempt 70 apply this,pripc.pie.
Happiness is not commensurable. Even
! as individuals we cannot say with Ger.
tainty that we are happier now than we
| were ten or twenty years ago. or that
we shall be happier tomorrow than we
are today. But even II this we're possible.
| and the means to happiness were pre-.
| csely the same for each individual. which
! is not the case. weisbould be unable still
| to determine what constituted the great
| est happiness OF the greatest number OF
| individuals. unless the happiness of one
| we're counted for as much as that of
another.
But to resort to this principle OF equity
| to ascertain happiness Is to admit that
equity is more reliable and more fuuda-
mental principle OF guidance than the
| criterion set up by Beutham The desire
| for happiness may be considered a universal
| fact but this does not prove that the
| happiness of one hundred men is of greater
| importance than that OF ninety-nine, with
| out the assumption that the happiness OF
each individual OF the one hundred Is equal
| in Importance to that OF each individual
| OF the ninety-nine.
Hence Spencer says: ut is not then
| self evident, as Bentham alleg es, that
| happiness is an intellig ible end while
| Justice isnot; but contrary wise. examination
| makes evident the greater intelligibility
OF Justice as an end. An analysis shows
why 1t is more intelligible. For Justice
| or equity, or equalness, is concerned cx-
| clusively with quantity under stated con-
| ditions; whereas happiness is concerned
| with both quantity and quality under
| conditions not stated.
For instance, il one purchase commodity
| from another, justice demands that a'ralue
| equal to that of the commodity should he
returned in paynient But il the law re-
| quired the purchaser to pay so much as
would produce the greatest sum OF hap
piness in the two individuals combined, no
court could interpret the law because OF
| its unknown quantities.
| JUSTICE A DIVINE, ATTRIBUTE.
| In most religious systems aud especially
| in the Christian system, justice is treated
| us one OF the Divine attributes. But view
| ing 1t as involving the idea OF equality Or
| equity, IL must DC regarded natural
principle also, Just as we regard rs natural
| the principle OF equality III mathematics.
| Why, then, should not the Christian and
| Secularist agree Upon the principle and
| logically apply it in legislatio Few
will venture to say that civilization could
continue ir the principles OF equity were
abandoned altogether. None have the ex-
| perience upon which to base a belier that
eivilization would fail because OF justice.
| L, was manifestly the perception, by
our constitutional fathers, or the value
| OF this principle of equality as u basis Of
| government, that induced them to gi-e
utterance to the grand sentiments in the
| declaration OF Independence. Thus in
| terpreted, tie words expressive Of the
| equality Of certain human rights, give
| that declaration a profound significance.
| The immortal Lincoln saw its nieafing
r...,I. rxIc