[Sidenote: Richard Cabot.]
It has been said in an earlier lecture that several writers have
declared that sex-ethics and sex-hygiene are essentially conflicting
and should not be associated in teaching; that is to say, that hygienic
facts should not be taught with the hope of improving morals. Most
prominent of those who have declared that hygienic and moral teaching
should be dissociated is Dr. Richard C. Cabot, of Boston. I shall give
in this lecture attention to his writings because they have tended to
introduce confusion by critical attention to certain weak details and
unessentials in the original suggestions for sex-education, and by
wrongly assuming that the original "sex-hygiene" was aimed at improved
morals, whereas it was aimed directly at health. In a paper entitled
"Consecration of the Affections (often misnamed 'Sex-hygiene')," read
at the fifth (1911) Congress of the American School Hygiene
Association, Dr. Cabot attacked the kind of sex-instruction that is
limited to sex-hygiene. He has later returned to the attack on many
occasions. I shall quote a number of his paragraphs and follow each
with a discussion of its contents.
[Sidenote: Hygiene and conduct.]
(1) "The straight, right action in matters of human affection has
nothing to do with hygiene. For hygiene has no words to proclaim
as to why you and I should behave ourselves. Hygiene has the right
and the duty to make clear the perverted and the diseased
consequences of certain errors. But these consequences are far
from constant.... Let us disabuse our minds, then, of the idea
that there are always bad physical consequences of mistake, error,
or sin in this [sex] field, and that those consequences are
reasons for behaving ourselves. But even if there were such
consequences, I think it even more mischievous for us to preach a
morality based upon them."
That hygienic knowledge makes many people control their sexual selves
is beyond dispute. Because the consequences of sexual error are far
from constant is a weak argument against pointing out possible results.
The consequences from pistols are far from constant, and yet I have no
doubt that Dr. Cabot would teach small boys the danger of shooting
themselves and other people.
[Sidenote: Hygiene and ethics for health.]
The last quoted sentence suggests Dr. Cabot's whole basis of contention
against sex-hygiene. He seems to have inferred from the earlier papers,
especially those by Dr. Morrow, that the hygiene of sex is to be taught
as an approach to morality. On the contrary, the truth is that the aim
of most of the first leaders in sex-instruction was to teach hygiene
and ethics primarily in order to improve health. Dr. Morrow and others
believed that hygienic teaching would secondarily react on sexual
morality; but the original aim of the Society of Sanitary and Moral
Prophylaxis was to limit the spread of venereal disease by sanitary,
moral, and legal means. In other words, moral appeals were to aid in
checking disease, and knowledge of disease was not claimed to improve
morality, although such knowledge might react against immorality. It is
this misunderstanding or overlooking of the real reasons for teaching
concerning sex health that seems to have led Dr. Cabot into apparent
opposition to the general movement for sex-instruction. One infers from
all his lectures that he believes it good to teach hygiene for health,
ethics for morality, and biology for science; but that these should not
be correlated because to him they are unrelated. It seems to me that he
has simply been misled by the overenthusiasm of some of the first
writers on sex-hygiene and by the widespread use of that limited term
instead of sex-education.
[Sidenote: Is sex-hygiene immoral?]
(2) "Now I say that the preaching about sex-hygiene that is going
on in recent books and in the periodical press is immoral in its
tendency. It is like saying, 'Don't lie, for if you do, you won't
sleep at night, and insomnia is bad for the health.'"
If insomnia often follows lying, then it should be taught as _one_
reason why falsehoods should be avoided. This is not opposed to ethical
teaching, for at the same time we can teach the other reasons for not
telling lies. Likewise, sex-hygiene offers certain reasons for conduct
and may be supplemented by sex-ethics.
[Sidenote: Information and morality.]
(3) "The attempts to consecrate affection and to safeguard
morality by teaching in public or private schools what is called
'sex-hygiene' will, I believe, prove a failure. I have very
little confidence in the restraining or inspiring value of
information, as such. I have seen too much of its powerlessness in
medical men and students. No one knows so much of the harm of
morphine as the physicians do, yet there are more cases of
morphine habit among physicians than among any less informed
profession. It is, of course, easy to make young children familiar
with the facts of maternity and birth. Compared to the ordinary
methods of concealment and lying by parents to children about
these matters this is doubtless an improvement, but it does almost
nothing to meet the moral problems of sex which come up later in
the child's life. One may know all about maternity, without
knowing anything of the difficulties and dangers of sex. Many have
thought that by thorough teaching of the physiology of
reproduction in plants and animals we can anticipate and to a
considerable extent prevent the dangers and temptations referred
to above."
It is not proposed "to consecrate affection" or "to safeguard morality"
by hygienic knowledge; but simply to protect health. Of course,
information will not restrain everybody; but if physicians did not know
the dangers of morphine many more would be victims of the drug. Dr.
Cabot overlooks the fact that physicians know how to use and obtain
morphine, while other professional men do not. Teaching concerning
maternity and birth will not directly meet the moral problems of sex,
but it will help develop an attitude, "a consecration of the
affections," that will guard against the dangers of sex. Such teaching
to children is only one of many steps in the scheme of sex-education.
No responsible advocate of sex-instruction claims that teaching
children concerning the reproduction of animals and plants does
anticipate and prevent sexual temptations; but it is a foundation for
practical knowledge of human sex problems. I have elsewhere referred to
the effect of such studies on attitude.
[Sidenote: Contagion of personality.]
(4) "The positive moral qualities which make us immune to the
dangers of sex are obtainable not through warnings as to dangers,
but through the more positive activities just alluded to. All that
is most practical and successful in this field of endeavor may be
summarized as the _contagion of personality, human or divine_.
What is it that keeps any of us straight unless it is the
contagion of the highest personalities whom we have known, in man
and God?"
We must admit that, perhaps, "positive moral qualities" are not
obtainable through warnings, but in this pragmatic age we must have
good social results gained by any honorable means. Many people are kept
from crime by warnings of the law. Of course, this is not a "positive
moral" result for the unethical individual who must be restrained by
fear of legal consequences, but we do not worry about the individual
when society gains. Likewise, a man kept from sexual promiscuity by
fear of disease is not more positively moral, but he is a better member
of society. No one will deny the importance of personality in its
influence on positive moral qualities; but there are many people who
are not influenced by personality, either human or divine. Other kinds
of control, such as hygienic and legal, are necessary for such people.
[Sidenote: Good and evil.]
(5) "A positive evil can be driven out only by a much more
positive good. The lower passion can be conquered only by a higher
passion."
Here, again, Dr. Cabot seems to misunderstand the aim of hygienic
teaching regarding sex. It is not expected "to conquer the lower
passion" by hygiene, but to help keep it under control to the end that
personal and social health will be improved. The opium evil (certainly
a _positive_ one) is being driven out of China by military methods that
are good only in their results in suppressing the drug. Likewise,
hygiene of sex will be a practical good in so far as it may reduce the
venereal curse. "Positive good" in Dr. Cabot's moral sense is only of
limited application so far as the majority of people are concerned. In
fact, the whole idea of solving the sexual problems by "consecration of
the affections" makes its strong appeal only to those who have already
grasped the higher view of sex and do not need sex-instruction. Other
people cannot understand the phrase. We must find some more direct and
practical attack on the sex problems for the masses; and I believe that
this means scientific teaching which improves attitude, and hygienic
teaching which protects personal and social health. It is worth while
to get these results even if we do not succeed in improving morals.
That, I believe, is another and quite independent problem.
[Sidenote: Dissociation of hygienic and moral teaching.]
In an address published in the _Journal of the Society of Sanitary and
Moral Prophylaxis_, Vol. V, No. 1, January 1914, Dr. Cabot contended
that the hygienic and moral aspects of sex-education should not be
associated. It is possible that the following review and criticisms may
be based upon a misinterpretation; but if so, I shall not feel lonely,
for at the close of the discussion, Dr. Cabot said to his audience, "it
is evident that I have not succeeded in touching even the surfaces of
your minds, and have not made an atom of impression in making the
distinction which I desired to make."
Dr. Cabot's main points are quoted below, and my comments follow each
quotation.
(1) "Sanitation can often be conveyed effectively by information,
but morality cannot be conveyed by telling things."
[Sidenote: Teaching morals.]
It is certainly true that sanitation can be taught by words. That words
concerning moral things have no value is a proposition which Dr. Cabot
did not clearly and convincingly support.
(2) "People often make sanitary mistakes from ignorance. So far as
you are ignorant you cannot be immoral. Morality is conditioned
upon knowledge of the right and wrong in question."
[Sidenote: Immoral or unmoral.]
Of course, one who is ignorant is unmoral and not immoral, but this
does not divorce sanitary and moral problems of social disease. An
ignorant and unmoral man may have unsanitary sexual habits, but
enlighten him regarding venereal disease and his habits make him
immoral.
(3) "I cannot see that biology has moral value."
[Sidenote: Moral value of biology.]
But it may have moral influence just as literature and history and
biography may have. Of course, pure biology alone will not make people
more sexually moral, but no responsible biologist has ever claimed that
it will.
(4) "In morals, we are dealing with the will, and if we believe
that the will is guided by intelligence, we must believe that all
people who _know_ what is right will _do_ what is right."
[Sidenote: Knowledge and will.]
It does not follow that to know what is right is to do what is right.
All depends upon the relative weight of opposing factors. A medical
student may _know_ the facts regarding venereal disease; but he also
knows the fact that his sexual instincts are insistent. The fact of his
passion may be more weighty than his scientific knowledge; and his will
may be guided by intelligent choice based on comparison of the two
opposing facts. Hence, it is illogical to contend that knowledge may
not influence moral conduct and that the will is not guided by
intelligence.
[Sidenote: Cultivation of morality.]
(5) "Any good achieved in any branch of morality helps all
morality. A person who learns any kind of self control is helped
toward all kinds. Anything that helps self control in one field
will help in all fields, the field of sex as well as others.
Whatever makes a person more obedient to conscience in matters of
truth or courage will help him in matters of chastity. We get
morality not by consciously cultivating particular virtues, but by
making ourselves useful men and women, by practice and by the love
and imitation of our betters. Thus, morality is cultivated in
hundreds of ways all at once."
This is sound, but it is in no logical way opposed to any other aspect
of sex-instruction discussed in this series of lectures.
(6) "Wherever the conditions of intimacy and interest
exist,--intimacy with the right person and interest in the right
thing,--moral training is going on."
[Sidenote: Influence of individuals.]
This is Dr. Cabot's strongest point. He believes in the moral influence
of individuals. So do all leading advocates of sex-instruction or of
any other form of moral education. This is in no sense opposed to any
accepted proposition of sex-education.
(7) "Sanitation may increase immorality.... I do care more for
morality than for sanitation. Where the two conflict I want
morality to lead and to govern."
[Sidenote: Morals rather than health.]
Right here is the basis for Dr. Cabot's repeated attacks on the
sex-education movement. He believes that morality and sanitation are
decidedly conflicting. His address fails to support this idea with
regard to a single point concerned with the proposed sex-education. He
mentioned only two points wherein there is apparent conflict, namely,
prophylaxis that allows immorality while avoiding venereal disease, and
prevention of conception. Neither of these is directly involved in the
sex-education movement, and their immoral bearings are highly
debatable.
[Sidenote: Ethics of venereal antisepsis.]
Venereal prophylactics may increase promiscuity of some unmoral and
immoral men, but if universally and scientifically used by such men,
there would be little or no infection of innocent women and children.
Therefore, I assert that the good that would come from the use of
prophylactics by those who do not recognize moral control would be far
more significant than the fact that venereal prophylactics might
encourage immorality. Those who would use prophylactics would be no
worse morally than they were before, but society would gain
hygienically.
[Sidenote: Ethics of contraception.]
Regarding the morality of prevention of fertilization, the best of
people hold opposing views. A great specialist in tuberculosis who
entered the discussion of Dr. Cabot's paper convinced most of his
hearers that hygienic prevention of fertilization of tubercular women
is a very moral act for a physician to advise. The real question of
morality involved in the problem of contraconception is not whether it
is immoral that sperm-cells should be prevented from swimming on
towards an egg-cell, but whether there is morality in a sexual union
that has its meaning only in affection and is not definitely intended
for propagation. It is obviously a complicated problem of hygiene,
psychology, ethics, aesthetics, religious beliefs, social traditions,
and personal prejudice; and it is absurd to allow it to become
entangled in the general propositions of sex-education. As I have often
said in this series of lectures, the larger sex-education aims at
making the best possible adjustments of sex and life. If the aesthetic
demands of affection are in real conflict with the animal function of
propagation, then a pragmatically ethical solution is found in
intelligent control of the original function. Ideally, the animal
function of propagation should be associated with the possibilities of
affection that have developed in the highest human life; but there are
numerous cases in which there must be dissociation of the functions of
affection and propagation, or the alternative is sexual asceticism.
Which is moral? This is a question concerning which the individual must
weigh his personal views and decide. Only the bigoted victims of
arrogance will see immorality in the one who disagrees with him on this
question. I insist, then, that even if advanced sex-education for
adults should some day come to involve the problem of contraconception,
there will be no conflict between hygienic knowledge and ethics, if the
teaching leads to more perfect adjustment of sex and life.
[Sidenote: Dr. Neumann's view.]
Probably the great majority of workers in the sex-education movement do
not in the least agree with Dr. Cabot's attempts to dissociate hygienic
and moral problems. A far more helpful view is that expressed by Dr.
Henry Neumann, leader of the Brooklyn Ethical Culture Society:
"Problems of hygiene, whether of sex, or nutrition, or temperance
and the like, are no less moral problems. They are problems of
habit; and habits are impossible without strong incentives to
start them and keep them going.... Ethical instruction is often
misunderstood to be barren preaching. It is nothing of the sort.
It consists in clarifying views of life. It begins with the fact
that there are certain tendencies in our nature which may work ill
or good. Then it tries to show to what these lead. It uses what is
best in us to make over what is worst. That is why problems of
sex-hygiene should be regarded as at bottom problems of
sex-morality."