POLITICAL EFFECTS. 261 But to return to the consideration of the political effects of a disbelief in religious and moral obligations. We are aware of the ready answer, that eminent atheists do not show a blood-thirsty disposition. Granted but men of their social and intellectual position are above the pinchings of want, and they are educated to a degree which enables them to see the untold evils that must result from a communistic outbreak, accompanied, as it would be, by outrages upon those called the upper classes; for they themselves belong to the upper classes, and their own personal interests are involved as directly as those of any other class, and hence we see them on the side of law and order. But, in case of a communistic rising, they could not control the result of their own teachings; and if in such a case they attempted to control the violent, they would fall before blind fury as soon as other persons. We are told that under a free government there is no danger of such outbreaks. Let us not deceive ourselves. We are also reminded of the benefits of intelligent instruction and the great blessings that flow from general education; and to that I say amen, provided the education is of the proper kind; but I have no sympathy with those who wish to let the moral education of children take care of itself. Much has been written about letting the generous natures of children be developed; but if they are brought up without moral restraint, how will their natures be developed? If all the wishes of children are gratified, what kind of men shall we have? In the majority of cases we shall have poor specimens of humanity. The passions of all need moral restraint, and unless children receive some kind of moral as well as intellectual teaching they seldom become valuable citizens. One very singular fact connected with all philosophical inquiry into mental and moral acts is the mutual dependence of several apparently diverse beliefs. For instance, nearly all philosophers who believe in the existence of an Omnipotent Creator also believe in a future conscious existence. Nearly all who believe in a Creator believe also in the existence of an absolutely unvarying moral standard, and that moral laws are as permanent and certain in their operations as the general laws of nature. Doubtless, if we could perfectly comprehend all truth, we could understand what this standard requires, and all would be obliged to agree not only to the existence of this standard, but also to what men should do to conform to its requirements. It must not be understood, however, that a perfect moral standard would require that all persons should act alike in all cases; for of necessity there must be different positions and circumstances in life. For instance, it might be in conformity with a perfect moral standard for one who is famishing with hunger to take and eat food, which under ordinary circumstances, would belong to another. Again, those who believe in an absolute moral standard generally believe in the immortality of the human soul. At first sight there would not seem to be any necessary or logical connection between morality, God and immortality. But why should those who generally reject belief in the existence of an eternal moral standard and an eternal Law-giver at the same time disbelieve in the soul's immortality? Many atheists believe in morality and in the performance of moral duties; but as their standard of morality can admit of no obligations to any higher power than humanity WHAT IS MORALITY? 263 itself, it cannot be an unvarying standard, for humanity is constantly changing. But what is morality? What constitutes an act a moral one? The lexicons tell us that "morality is the relation of conformity to the true moral standard, or rule." But what is this standard which is called the true? On what basis does it rest, and in what does it consist? What is the real foundation on which the moral quality of an act must stand, and what is the abstract quality which expresses the difference between a moral act and an immoral one? There must be something in the very nature of things which underlies the principles upon which morality apparently rests. What is that foundation? I am aware that many think it is not scientific to suppose the will of the Deity can have anything to do with the absolute moral quality of an act, and that the real quality is the same whether the act is in accordance with the will of the Deity or not. Such a position is satisfactory to such as do not believe the Deity ever made a revelation of His will These assert that inasmuch as what seems moral to one may seem immoral to another, therefore there cannot be an absolute code of morals which is applicable to all men. Some trace all evil to selfishness, and others all good to unselfishness. Still others assert that the moral quality of an act is entirely dependent upon its utility. to man. Now I suppose that any act, which, taken in all its bearings, tends to the best good of mankind and their ultimate happiness, cannot be otherwise than moral; and it is also, in one sense, an act of highest utility. And, further, I cannot believe that the performance of any act which is strictly moral can be of ultimate injury to the doer, when we take into consideration all its bearing. An objection may be noted in the case of a person who sacrifices his present interests, or his life, for the good of others. In case of one whose life is voluntarily sacrificed to save others the question may be raised how that can result in good to the one sacrificed? That raises another question which leads into realms that lie beyond the reach of human experiences, and hence, from want of any certain knowledge on this point, we must leave the question unanswered, or else refer its answer to a power or being wiser than we are. I cannot believe, however, that the principle of self-sacrifice has been placed in mankind except for wise reasons. But it seems natural to suppose that a perfect moral standard must be in harmony with the physical laws of the universe, or with what are called the laws of nature, for both are believed to be established by the same power. Following out this idea, we may suppose that, as a general rule, men who live up to the highest moral standard which commends itself to the judgment and reason of intelligent and enlightened men enjoy better health and live longer than those who are careless in regard to these things. Also, that the man who attempts to live up to the standard of morals set up by Jesus Christ will enjoy better health, and that (other things being equal) in consequence of this better health he may expect a longer life and much greater happiness than one who disregards this high standard of morals. The very fact that such physical and mental results follow high moral action seems to indicate, even if we assume that utility, or conformity with the laws of nature, forms the true basis of morals, that the maxims of Jesus, judged by either standard, are of the highest order of utility. And this fact, again, would seem to indicate that the origin of these maxims TEACHINGS OF CHRIST. may be found in the very highest wisdom. 265 Can we then wonder that so many believe that these maxims and precepts were dictated by wisdom from above? Of course, believers in the teachings of Christ and his apostles will readily acknowledge that some necessary logical connection must exist between belief and non-belief in God and belief or disbelief in the existence of the human soul. In regard to the question whether there is an unalterable moral standard, it seems evident that there can be no definite answer unless we first decide in our minds whether there is an Infallible Law-giver; or, in other words, we should first decide whether there is prepondering evidence of the existence of an Infinitely Wise Being or Power which established the laws that govern the universe. If such a Being exists, He may prescribe a standard which will be in complete harmony with universal laws. But if there is not clear evidence of the existence of such an Infinitely Wise Being or Power, then an unalterable moral standard may not be supposed to exist; for with changing circumstances or surroundings the quality of moral actions will be likely to change. Kant held that neither the existence of God, nor the immortality of the human soul, nor the freedom of the will could be demonstrated through any scientific arguments or speculations; and yet he believed in God, and in moral and religious obligations, though rejecting much which is taught as theology. He also believed in an unvarying moral standard, and in the freedom of the will, without which freedom these moral laws could not be obeyed; and, further, that without the existence of "God and the soul's immortality there would be no final cause or motive for human conduct." "He further believed that men may be placed |