, 1904-01-21
PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.
Right and Wrong.

Why is right, right, and why is wrong,
wrong2
The T~heosophi-t who has accepted
the theory of r~eiucarnation AS offering
a very probable working hypothesis
in explaining the hithertoineXplicable
conditions of those around him, will
materially find that his estimate of
the good or evil in "A given act will
differ somewhat from that of those
who have not vet grasped the mean
ing of that great truth. 1t would be
"A safe rule and also "A great help in
understanding the position taken by
the writer of any article on Theosophy
that the reader would for the moment
take it for granted that reincarnation
and karma are true so AS to be able
to view the subject from the stand
point taken by the writer. Only in
this way is it possible to understand
all that he may intend to convey.
The first underbrush that will have
to be cleared away in writing on the
subject of morality from a Theosoph-
ical standpoint, is that nowhere in the
teachings of Theosophy is to be
found anything that seems. even on
the face of it, to excuse or proclaim
to the world aught that womld offend
the most %faslidious i'll regard TO NOR
ais in any phase whatever,
Looking at the subject of morality
in the abstract, however. we shall
have to remember that man has to
grow from the lowest stage of devel-
opment into the very image of Him
who gave him his life. We find men
at every stage Of evolution; every var
iety of inner evolving nature from the
savage to the sage. Since this is so,
ii We're folly to demand of men of
such varied intelligence the same high
appreciation of questions of ethics OF
to expect them to follow the same
rules of conduct. Morality. plainly,
will have to be viewed only in rela
ton TO the people who are to practice
it. When we come to the individual
we will have to consider the stage he
has reached in his evolving life. Alb
solute right dwells in God alone, con
trarv to our preconceived ideas, gov
erned as all human beings are when
making any discrimination, by hui
man sellishness. Our right and
wrong are never more than relative,
however uupalatable the truth may
be. When a man was ii caunibal he
thought it just and right to follow
his instincts. After Il while he has
passed the cannibal stage. but he
may kill whoever approaches the vii
lage without first blowing IA horn.
Later, SO long as he does not come as
an enemy armed for war, he may
peacefully come into the country or
the city by the hundred; and the one
who would take his life therefor
would lose his " II the hands of
the law. Who is to say the primitive
man was not moral and only the high
ly civilized man is moral i'll his action.
Everywhere in the world we see
standards of right set up and every
where we see absolute failure even t.
aim at these ideals. No one ques-
lions that they should he followed,
but why do people fail wen to try
to live up to them? 1t is questions
of this nature that Theosophy is al
Ways ready 10 offer IA possible solution
for. 1t is all very well to say: son
account of the innate wickedness of
man" But is man %innately wicked,
and if 50, why? We all know there
il "A wide divergence between our
faith and our practice. OF this much
we are sure.
We find three schools of morality,
differing materially in their theories
and teachings. One of them saws
that revelation from God is the basis
of morality. The opponents of this
statement raise the Objection to it
that there are many religions in this
world and every religion has its own
revelation. 1t is true we are apt in
matters religious and political, to
think that those who differ from us
are, Intentionally or otherwise, wholly
wrong; but that is simply because we
are human. Who is to decide where
the supreme authority in revelation
lies? II certainly is natural that each
religion will regard its " revelation
us supreme, aud in such a conflict of
tongues, who is to guide the student
clear of the shoals?
Another weakness in this theory
which affects all moral standards
founded IN a ev,lltiun given once