Chapter XII

New Standards and New Hopes

The Forerunner: Vol. V, No. 12 (p. 327-332)

December 1914

We face to-day a vital need of clear, simple, and generally accepted standards of ethics, workable ethics.

When religious dogma is doubted and religious authority denied, the ethics based on such dogma and authority weaken and fail. Many, seeing this, have striven to keep up old beliefs no longer accepted by themselves, as a means of maintaining good behavior in others. We can see clearly enough the weakening of the old sanctions, but have not seen with any certainty the strengthening of new ones.

Let us discriminate clearly between the two main fields of conduct, the genetic and telic. In the first, that part which is due to instinct and tradition calls for much determined change, while that which is due to the reactive influence of conditions is improving rapidly. In the second—which is our conscious conduct, will-governed, and based on knowledge—we find our strongest hope.

Man's consciousness, his power of determination, his ability to resist hereditary impulse and the pressure of environment, constitutes the great human distinction.

But if this power of determination is based on false premises, it gives rise to our peculiar capacity of behaving worse than any "lower animal."

It is only by establishing right premises to guide our determinations that this essential superiority becomes wholly beneficial. Only by such true judgment may we enlist the human will in those mutually assisting processes, those lines of conduct which most rapidly develop and improve us.

There is needed, first, the analysis of ancient impulses, checking some, repudiating some, maintaining others; and with a similar discrimination in traditional guides to conduct.

Second, the careful establishment of such conditions as are known to promote right conduct.

Third, the universal study and practice of our new ethics, based on natural law, social in its character, wholly reliable, uplifting, strengthening, comforting.

Of this last, while it is but beginning to be understood, we have already quite a sufficient grasp to make a clear start in its teaching, and in its practice.

The main change, the one great fundamental departure out of our old field of doubt and confusion—or of submission and stagnation—is the transfer of the headquarters in our thought from the individual to society.

While we persist in interpreting life in terms of the individual, that individual's distress and perplexity increase in proportion to social advance. Only a cast-iron faith in some ancient religion enables him to maintain that essential to human piece of mind-a definitely accepted scheme of life to which all conduct is related.

No matter what the scheme may be, no matter on what proofless dogma it is based, so long as the brain has an accepted plan to rest its thought upon, it finds therein a measure of contentment.

In the process of religious growth (and not even the iron immobility of "revealed religions" has been able wholly to resist the pressure from the growing brain of man) we have repeatedly changed details in our basic scheme.

But we have not got so deep as that mischievous first premise of an ego-centric universe. Our ideas of life, death and immortality, our plans for this world and for all eternity, our sanctions for conduct, our rewards and punishments, praise and blame all our theories of life, have gone back to that ancient premise of the Individual Soul.

The New Standards all require a change in this—a change to a Homocentric Universe; that attitude of mind which studies the conduct of Humanity, not the conduct of John and Amelia.

This involves, it is true, a deep and searching readjustment of ideas, and the establishment of new feelings, based on the new ideas.

But granting the thorough and more or less difficult change required, the result is a peace of mind such as the modern world has never enjoyed. Not the peace of a stagnant submission, a suicide of one's own thought, a resetting of one's neck in the yoke of the long past; nor any similar acceptance of some new dogma lacking even the weight of ancient custom; but the peace of a free forward-pushing journey on a broad bright open road—the direction sure at last.

To know, not to merely believe, but to know that our race is in process of improvement; to know the steadily increasing speed, the growing interest and delight of that process; to know the measures which most surely help that upward progress and to have the power to take those measures—this gives to human life the peace, the assurance, the growing splendor of a sunrise.

See the limitations of our earlier concept, even at its best. We postulate a Soul. This Soul, from God-Knows-Where, is born—lodged in flesh on this confused and sorrowful planet. All it knows, by the filtered light of very ancient books, is that there is a God—and a Devil, these engaged in endless conflict for the possession of said Soul. (What for? If the Devil gets it, for endless torment. If God gets it, for endless bliss. What kind of bliss? Very indefinite and unsatisfactory.)

Some, pushed by the growing brain, discard the Devil, and postulate God only, working out a mysterious plan, and steering said Soul through tortuous paths onward and upward to—God-Knows-What. But we have hopes, strange hopes of "Eternal Rest," or "Eternal Peace," or "Eternal Growth"; some of the brisker sort even hope for "Eternal Action."

But always this Solitary Soul, wending its way throughout Life, Death, and Immortality, without any clear idea of what it is all about. Some hope "to know" after death. Some hope, and confidently expect, the ceaseless companionship of their beloved ones, after death. But no one has any comfortable convictions in regard to Life; Life here, on this earth, and its purpose.

Here opens the New Ethics, based on Society.

It says: A Force, which we know, because we can see, feel, and use it, has set this world going, and brought it thus far. It is so good a world and we are so attuned to it, that a healthy person derives keen pleasure from just Sun and Air and Water and the Green Earth.

On this world we are visibly the major power. We are a Thing in Motion, a Process of Development. We, alone, as far as we know, have this vast field of Consciousness that can envisage Life—think about it, and so act as to change it.

We live and function in groups, and in those mutual relations find our largest exercise and joy.

We have risen to our present state from smaller, less developed groups, and have now a far larger field of pleasurable expression and impression than ever before. Visibly our progress is upward and presumably toward still higher efforts and satisfactions.

Then rises the old "Problem of Evil." The New Ethics answers: The good in human life is natural, essential, and increasing. The evil is almost exclusively due to our own imperfect adjustment. We have not understood our social environment, have not known how to adjust ourselves to it and it to ourselves so as to promote progress and lessen pain.

The "Problem of Evil," so far as it treats of outside conditions, resolves itself into a matter of understanding natural forces and adapting ourselves accordingly. This is a long upward course of study and achievement in which we find both satisfaction and success.

The real "Problem of Evil" about which so much discussion arises is purely a matter of Inter-Social relation—of the things we do to one another. This is, of course, the subject matter of ethics, and calls for this wholesale change of base, the question being, not "How shall I behave to the other I's?" but "How shall We behave to Us?"

This is not so difficult. The whole external field of social conduct is so clear that none need be confused by it.

The child should be shown, from infancy, the field of social relation; the superior pleasure, advantage, and obligation of social service, and its simpler processes. That we should so act as to give best service to society in the line of its continued improvement—that is not hard to understand. In the light of this direction we may study forms of government, law, religion, business—all social processes.

The morbid questioning of the Ego as to its Unknown Past and Unknown Future are quite lost sight of in the rich satisfaction of full social expression.

Some neurasthenic megalomaniac baseballist (if any such person could play ball!) might wonder vaguely, "How did I come to be in this Game?" or, "Where shall I go when this Game is over?" with no satisfaction to himself and with great injury to his batting record.

He should get into the Game!—and find in it his immediate reason for being, which is to Play Ball. When the Game is over is high time to plan for what next. As to how he came to be in it—that is ancient history, particularly futile in case he couldn't help it.

In view of this patent futility of inquiry as to the previous whereabouts of the Soul—an inquiry somewhat similar to "Where was the flame before the candle was lit?"—surely we may dismiss it forever from our minds.

We are here, as the song has it, because we're here— at least that is our practical start. The Personal "Whence?" we may therefore lay on the table, but the Social "Whence?" is so well established as. to give the mind a much needed rest.

Society is here, with a very clear record. We have enough left of the rough human material from which Society has grown to trace our origins; and we have not only in recorded history, but in the remaining half-way stages and experimental steps, plenty of proof of our methods.

In the light of this record there is no question whatever of the value of certain kinds of conduct and the danger of others. Here we may rearrange our scale of virtues, establish a temporary order of preference, and go on, until, with further light, we change it. But to every child could easily be taught the place and use of courage, self-control, perseverance, love, truth—or each and every real virtue; and, as easily, the various "anti-social acts" we call vices.

Never again should we say of some rapidly deteriorating character: "He is nobdy's enemy but his own." By deteriorating he becomes a traitor, an enemy of Society. He has no right to admit to the Great Body any form of disease.

This cardinal base underlies each step in Social Ethics. We exist, not individually, but socially. By virtue of social progress we are differentiated and developed. As social progress made me what I am, I owe to social progress my life's best service. That is the foundation of Social Ethics. From that base we may then study the nature and relative importance of our various lines of conduct; learn which were most useful at such and such periods of history, which we need most now, and which are called for to advance farther.

There are still many who place Ethics aside from and below Religion. Ethics, they say, appeals only to the Intellect; Religion to the Heart, to the Soul.

In using these words they speak of untenable distinctions. "The Heart" is a misused word, confounding the functions of a circulatory organ with those of the brain. In similar wise we used to call a coward "chicken-livered," or speak of "having no stomach for the fight"; as also of "bowels of compassion," and other physiological metaphors.

Violent emotion does affect various organs. Love—one variety of it—does "register" in heart action, and extreme fear even affects the kidneys. But emotion is roused in our consciousness by way of the brain. No oratory will stimulate an idiot.

What "the Soul" is, or wherein it lodges, is not definitely established, but again, we do not look for it in idiots. It takes some brain to allow standing room for the Soul, apparently.

As vaguely do we use the word "Intellect," as if it was a separate department of the brain's forces, to be appealed to or not at will. Intellect is brain-activity and brain-power. We use it in choosing our religion, if we do consciously and responsibly adopt it; and we use it in carrying out our religion—if we are in any sense free agents.

What underlies our loose phrasing is this: That Religion, in the past, has chosen to appeal to some few of our more primitive mental processes, as Belief, Faith, Fear, or Hope of Reward. Then, because the use of the higher later mental processes, as of logical reasoning, determination, an exercised will based on determination, were always dangerous to the basic dogmas of religion, these higher processes were set apart as belonging to what was called "intellect"; even contemptuously—"our poor human intellect!" and the earlier faculties considered as superior.

Yet the painful fact that acceptance of dogma and tradition is easier in proportion to extreme youth, to ignorance, or to relative savagery, ought to make even a poor human intellect question their value.

Acting on its absurd premise it remained for Ancient Religion to underrate and condemn the products of that same despised intellect, so that all the real progress of humanity has been consistently belittled, and we are taught to extol some qualities and condemn others merely as they conduce to the acceptance or rejection of dogma.

The New Standards will change all this. Social Ethics shows the relation between material and psychic progress, and establishes the line of human duty to lie, not in defiance of natural law, but in accordance with it.

This does not mean, as some early reactionists assumed, that since the dogmabased requirements of religion called for the restraint of “natural instincts," therefore in rejecting the dogmas we may reject all restraints.

Ethics, far more than religion, establishes the need of a strong dominant personal control of conduct, rigorously refusing expression to impulses proven injurious, and as rigorously compelling actions seen to be advantageous, even though at present undesired.

Where religion has been able to enforce its arbitrary rites, its sensuous ceremonials, its often cruel and senseless denials and compulsions; it has not been able so to develop clear-sighted, self-governing, efficient human beings.

The psychology of a highly organized, long-established religion tends to encourage and maintain minds fitted to accept that religion; and, as every such religion dates back to a much earlier period of mental power, this tends to check social progress.

But if we think, not of any given religion with given creed, but of "Religion" itself, as a state of mind, as that grouping of one set of percepts into a given relation, and the pouring of the stream of energy we call emotion out through that group of percepts—then we see the lasting use and value of religion.

This is what we mean when we say a person has "made a religion" of business, or of housekeeping, or of what you will. We mean that the person has correlated a certain set of values, ideas, habits, into a fixed group, and works powerfully, exclusively, along those lines.

Let us here offer to the world a very simple, very practical, suggestion :—

Suppose we make a Religion of Ethics.

Think of it.

A Religion, world-wide, life-deep, thought-high, hope-far, warm with love and light with knowledge; full of movement, of growing hope, of ever-marching achievement. A Religion which should set before the young Soul a Race Ideal, involving the happiness of every human being, resting on established knowledge, agreeing with all the facts of life, explaining, satisfying, inspiring, stimulating, directing.

⯌ ⯌ ⯌

We have been saying to a noble-spirited child: "You are to do this because the Bible says so." And when he asks, "Why?" we tell him that if he does not he will be punished and if he does he will be rewarded; then if he asks "How do you know?" we tell him again, "Because the Bible says so.' And if he still asks "How do you know it's true?" we are able to answer only "Because it says so."

Instead of this, Social Ethics will surround the child's first years with such vivid teaching of human interests and human progress as to furnish foundation for further understanding; and then, year after year, show him that he is to do this because of its effect on humanity. If he asks how we know it has such effect —show him.

⯌ ⯌ ⯌

We can show, in present example, in selected story, in pictures, moving or still, what are the results of such and such lines of conduct. We can, for the teaching of children, set ourselves to reconstruct most of the influences with which they are surrounded.

There is no need of fighting with nature, of "breaking the will," of any morbid process; we have but to direct and use natural forces, recognizing that social progress is as much a part of evolution as the growing of a tree.

We can show how right conduct is first easy to explain, to justify. Second, that it means increased happiness. Third, that if it involves present effort or discomfort, still the result is well worth it.

We can show, with a new set of heroes, real ones, who have served humanity in ways any child can see, how such and such qualities are useful, valuable, noble, to be loved and honored.

We can make what used to be called "sin" seem mere foolishness—a thing to be laughed at, pitied, despised.

It is, admittedly, a great change, a change involving one of the most fundamental concepts of our century-filled minds. But, having changed it, all the other concepts change with it, inevitably.

When devout missionaries seek to press their various faiths upon dubious hearers they urge Revelation, Authority, which may or may not be accepted. They urge Reward and Punishment, which may or may not appeal to their listeners. They urge Results—modern missionaries these—and even the results may not be very convincing.

What are the Results of our present standards of ethics.

In the most forward nations of the earth, among which we fondly class our own, what have we to show as proof that our accepted standards are the best?

Some great principles we have, principles that work, that require no justification. But among our highest we find plenty of our lowest; there is small coordination. Under this idea we do right, under that idea we do wrong; not only does the conduct of one person offset that of another, but the conduct of the same person, at different times, in different relations, is self-contradictory.

They sway and struggle, pushing now up, now down, now sideways, and the slow growth of our best ideals is continuously interfered with by a recrudescence of earlier ones, as in the holocaust of Christian civilization in Europe in this war begun in 1914.

Is it not worth while to consider a complete rearrangement of Ethical Values, resultant on this change of concept, from an Egoistic to a Social base?

The Christian religion will lose least of any. Its central truth of love and service will stand the test of proof; its theory of the remission of sins can be interpreted by Social Ethics, not as a remission of consequences, but as a repudiation of the very idea of "sin."

But it will lose its pitiful Calvinistic "Scheme of Salvation," as well as its rock-based Church; even as Judaism must surrender that tribal fallacy of the "Chosen People," Buddhism its resentment against natural life, Islam its pride of indispensable Prophet and its sensual masculine paradise. The common sense of Confucianism will survive, blending with all the best of every other faith, but The Religion of Ethics will rest not on any "faith," but on Truth, known and established.

For emotional content this religion will let loose the strongest yet least recognized passion of the human soul—the Social Passion, the love of Humanity itself. We have this, we feel it, we use it; but we do not consciously recognize and honor it, as yet.

The love of truth, another deep emotion, works freely in it; the spirit of progress has full sway, and all the healthy interests and right desires of humanity, for peace and beauty, health and happiness, find sanction and correlation at last.

And God?

If we could find any trace of God in the tangled masses of falsehood, pride, cruelty and ignorance, disfiguring all the old religions, shall we fail to see the same Great Power in this one?

If we could "worship" Baal and Peor, Pasht and Isis, Krishna and Kali, a jealous and bloodthirsty Jehovah, or a misty Trinity—can we not recognize and honor the Lift and Light of the Universe, the one Acting Force that carries on all the processes about us, in the clear and simple truths of Social Ethics?

Here is the human race, growing.

It is Conscious and Forceful—it can help or hinder its own growth.

It has never yet understood that it was growing, until the great concept of our times, Evolution, began to spread.

It needs to recognize that all its conduct is to be measured by its effect on that common growth, and to re-label that conduct accordingly.

The old standards of ethics bear as little relation to the structure and functions of a living Society as the spots on a patchwork quilt bear to the organs of the sleeper beneath.

The New Standards are based on life, on Sociological Law.

With them comes the New Hope, the most brilliant and most sure that was ever open to us. "We know not that which we shall be," perhaps, but we know, at last, how much we are beyond our sea-born ancestors, and that our descendants shall be even more than that beyond us.

With such a hope, and the knowledge of how to attain it, Life opens clear.

(The End.)