Images de page
PDF
ePub

hall, and with argumentative power and literary skill in numerous books and periodicals. The effect of this teaching is manifested in the growing opinion among the more thoughtful even of the wealthy and leisured classes, that a life spent in ease and idleness and the pursuit of pleasure is not the admirable and desirable thing it was once thought to be. The vices and frivolity, the extravagance and the barrenness of modern society are now felt, and are being fully exposed by its own members; and one of these modern prophets, Lady Lyttelton Gell, ably urged, in the Nineteenth Century of November, 1892, "that definite work of some sort should be the law, not merely the accessory of every girl's life," and that it should be the means of bringing about more union between the classes, and a real friendship between the highest and the lowest.

Now, I venture to think that nothing would tend more to bring about these desirable results than a method of observing Sunday in some way resembling that here advocated, while the beneficial effect on all concerned would be very great. The upper classes would learn, many of them for the first time, how great and how fatiguing is the labour daily expended in securing them the unvarying comfort and æsthetic enjoyment of their surroundings, and how often they cause unnecessary work by their thoughtlessness or extravagance. The need they would have, at first, of learning the duties of the particular department they were going to undertake, would bring them into friendly and intimate relations with their servants; and, in seeing how much care was often required to secure the comfort of the family, they might begin to appreciate that "dignity of labour" which is so often preached to the poor but so seldom practised by the rich. To many this "Sunday service" in their own families, or in that of some of their friends, would be the introduction to some serious occupation for their weekday lives, and thus inaugurate the great reform which the more thoughtful leaders of society see to be of imperative necessity.

On the whole body of the workers the effect would be great indeed, since it would at once bring about better relations with the wealthy classes, and especially with those who teach or profess religion. They would see, what they had hitherto doubted or denied, that the religion of the upper classes had some real influence on their lives, by leading them, not merely to give away a portion of their surplus wealth in charity, or to take part in the public proceedings of charitable institutions, but really to sacrifice something which they have hitherto considered necessary to their comfort in order to obey the laws of that religion. They would further see, everywhere, men and women of culture voluntarily undertaking various public and private duties, in order to allow all kinds of workers to enjoy repose and recreation on one day in seven; and this great objectlesson in brotherhood and sympathy would lead to a general good feeling between all classes. The harmonious relations which would be thus produced might be of inestimable value when the time comes for those radical reforms in our social organization which are more and more clearly seen to be inevitable in the not distant future.

It is, perhaps, too much to expect that the "counsel of perfection" here set forth for the consideration of the religious world by an outsider, will have much effect on conduct. But even if it should influence a few here and there to alter their mode of life on the day they hold to be divinely instituted as a period of complete rest for all servants and beasts of burden, and if it should render others less severe in their judgment of those they term "Sabbathbreakers," but who often less deserve that name than do their accusers and if it thus helps, in however small a degree, to lower the barriers which now divide class from class, and to remove one of the causes which lead many of the workers to look upon the religion of the rich as little better than hypocrisy, the object with which it was written will have been fulfilled.

CHAPTER XXI

WHY LIVE A MORAL LIFE? 1

TAKING morality in its ordinary meaning, as including all actions for personal ends which are not knowingly injurious or painful to others, the question asked is, What are the sanctions of morality to the pure Rationalist-to the person who does not actively believe in a future state of existence? Can such a person give clear and logical reasons of sufficient cogency to induce him, even under the stress of temptation, and when any detection or evil results to himself appear out of the question, yet to act with strict conformity to moral principles ?

In existing society the abstention from immoral actions by individuals is usually due to one or more of the following causes :-(1) A natural upright and sympathetic disposition, to which any act hurtful or disagreeable to others is repugnant, and is, therefore avoided. (2) The fear of punishment, or of the condemnation of public opinion, leading to ostracism by the society in which they live. (3) The influence of religious belief, which declares certain acts to be offensive to the Deity, and to lead to punishment in a future life. (4) The belief expressed in the saying, "Honesty is the best policy," which may be expanded into the general principle that the moral life is, emphatically, the happiest life.

With the first cause, on which, probably, the largest proportion of moral action depends, we have here nothing to do, since it does not involve any process of reason-of why we should act in one way rather than in anotherbut rests entirely on feeling, due to natural disposition. It is, however, the greater or less proportion of such persons in any community that determines the action of the next most powerful incentive to morality-public opinion; since dread of the criminal law is not so much dread of the punishment itself as of the disgrace attending it. To the great majority of educated people this is undoubtedly the most powerful incentive to abstain from immoral conduct; while the correlative approval of society has a large share in producing actively moral conduct, especially under conditions when such conduct is more or less open to public notice.

1 This article formed part of a Symposium on the above question which appeared in the Agnostic Annual, 1895.

The other two causes enumerated above have, comparatively, very little influence on conduct. Innumerable examples show that the firmest belief in the doctrine of future rewards and punishments has hardly any influence on conduct in cases where it is not enforced by the approval or disapproval of public opinion. It is now generally admitted that the believer in religious dogma is, on the average, neither more honest nor more moral than the Agnostic or the Atheist. No doubt, in exceptional cases, religious enthusiasm acts upon character and conduct in a very powerful degree. We are, however, concerned here, not with exceptional cases, but with the average individual, and it has not been shown by any statistical inquiry that belief in the system of future rewards and punishments leads to exceptionally moral conduct. The same may be said of the believers in the essential reasonableness of a moral life as the best guarantee of permanent happiness. It is doubtful whether such a belief, however firmly held, really influences any one in time of temptation, or leads to any change of conduct which society does not condemn, but which is yet fundamentally immoral. It was, and is held by great numbers of persons, both religious and sceptical, that slavery was absolutely immoral; yet, probably, not one in a thousand followed the Quakers in refusing to purchase slave-grown sugar. Neither will it be maintained that any belief in the abstract principle of the beneficial results of morality would restrain a poor, selfish, and naturally unsympathetic man from pressing the electric button which would at once destroy some unknown millionaire and make the agent of his destruction the honoured inheritor of his wealth.

It is under circumstances analogous to the lastmentioned case that we can alone have a real test of the efficiency of any alleged sanction for morality. When a man can greatly benefit himself by an act which he believes can never be known, and which will, perhaps, only slightly injure others as by destroying a will of whose existence no other person is aware-no belief in the general principle that honesty is the best policy can be depended on to secure a strictly moral line of conduct. Why, in fact, should a man give up what he knows will ensure freedom from anxiety, and from a constant and laborious struggle for bare existence, and afford him the means of living a pleasurable and luxurious life the only life in which he has any belief-and all for the sake of a general principle which the society around him does not, as a rule, act upon? Why should he thus injure himself and his own family in order to benefit strangers of whom he knows nothing? Of course there are many men, without either religion or any formulated ethical principles, who would not hesitate a moment in such a case, because their natural sentiments of right and justice, enforced by constant association with men of honour and morality, would render the strict line of moral action natural and easy to them; but with such men we have, so far as the present discussion is concerned, nothing to do.

For these reasons, it seems to me that the Rationalist) or Agnostic has no adequate motive for living a moral life, except so far as he is influenced by public opinion and by a belief that, generally, it pays best to do so. But neither of these influences 1S of the least value, either in exceptional cases of temptation, or in those very common circumstances when the usual actions of the society in which a man lives are not justified by morality; as in the innumerable adulterations, falsehoods, and deceptions so common in trade that it has been even asserted that no thoroughly honest manufacturer or tradesman can make a living.

« PrécédentContinuer »