average intelligence to be found among the great run of so-called common
people. I have heard enough about modern science to be lost in wonder of
it and I received a good modern education at the high school. I gave up
going to church because it didn't appeal to me--a lot of the Bible
preaching seemed out-of-date, unreasonable and unpractical. I've heard a
little about this theory of evolution--man descended from an ape--and as
modern science is said to have proved it, I guess it must be so. The
main thing that concerns me is that I'm here, on the job, with a living
to make. There are a lot of other men around me, about the same as I am.
We're reasonable and practical and believe in getting all we can,
honestly. We think we're about as good as anybody else and we believe in
the rule of the majority.
When I look about at the people born luckier than I am, with more of the
world's goods, I can't see that they're any different from the rest of
us. They're trying to get all they can, too, only they've managed to get
a blame sight more than the rest of us. Take my boss, for instance. Is
there any reason for him to be living in a big house with eight
servants, and riding around in a limousine car, when all I can afford is
a flivver? Does he work any harder than I do? Is he any better man? or
any smarter? I haven't seen any proof of it. But just because he
happened to have a rich father before him, he's allowed to get the
lion's share of all we make. Is that reasonable? We all want the good
things of life, as much as he does, and if we're in the majority, why
shouldn't we have our share?
He didn't make the capital that's in this business, and he didn't have
anything to do with making his rich father; and the money his father
made, when you come down to it, was squeezed from men like us. If the
world is supposed to be run by reason, and reason says the majority
ought to rule, why shouldn't each one of us have an equal share with
him?
I'm thinking of myself, of course, the same as everybody else--first,
last and all the time--and in that way I'd be a lot better off, but that
doesn't prevent what I want from being reasonable.
Without saying it, in so many words, is it not plain that I am merely
following in a way that an ordinary mind might understand, the creed
which science has recommended as the underlying motive for all
conduct--self-interest and the rule of reason.
Doubtless a very highly developed scientific intellect might declare
that my reason is not sufficiently enlightened; but it has received a
high school education, and looked about at what other people are doing,
and formed the scientific habit of sticking to the facts. Isn't that
about as much as Enlightened Reason could expect of me?
* * * * *
Now if you happen to be another type of workman, less affected by the
modern scientific conclusions concerning life, you might reply as
follows:
"I feel very contented and humbly grateful to the Lord for all the
benefits he has given us. I am well and strong, I have a better home,
and better wages, and squarer treatment than workmen ever received in
any country in the world. I can make enough to provide modestly and
comfortably for my wife and children, which after all is the main thing
for my happiness. It is not for me to pass judgment on the life of our
employer, or his inheritance, or the life of his father before him, or
the great scheme of human existence which is behind and beyond it all.
It is enough for me to accept such things, as the wish of an all-wise
Creator."
Of these two opposing points of view, which appears to be the one that
has been spreading and gaining in the world to-day--in America and
England, Italy, France, Spain and other countries? Which one is
dependent upon the fundamental feelings of faith and aspiration, which
have always found shelter in a religion of some sort--and which one may
be traced, almost directly, to a crude interpretation of the progress
and dictates of modern science?
And let it be noted that in this field, also, before the world war
began, this movement of self-interest and reason was already in evidence
and well on its way.
If we examine the Labor Union and the Closed Shop, and Strikes and
Socialism and Bolshevism, and all those other kindred isms, we can see,
readily enough, that the under side of them all is tarred with the same
brush--self-interest, selfishness, greed, individual and collective, and
reason, argument, excuse, more or less distorted and perverted, but more
or less enlightened by the principles of modern Science, as they appear
to the average intellect. The fundamental and innate spiritual feelings
of man's better nature have been so covered over by the energy of this
brush that, for the most part, they are only rarely and intermittently
discernible.
Suppose we now follow our clue in another direction--into the home and
family and private life of the average up-to-date woman. And it is
permitted us to imagine, if we choose, that I am such a woman, while you
are my well-meaning, but rather out-of-date, husband.
I have received my education at a typical school of the present day,
organized on thoroughly modern and scientific principles. In my studies
and my general instruction, I have learned to consider everything from a
strictly rational point-of-view--hygiene, psychology, economics, the
equal rights of the individual, the expediency of the laws, the need of
judges to interpret them and of police to enforce them--and a variety of
other school subjects which are regarded as an excellent training for
the intellect. Among other things which I learned very quickly, both
outside and inside of school, is that most pompous and impressive
preachers don't practise what they preach. It's so unpractical and
unreasonable that it appears to be a sort of pretence and convention for
the benefit of the young and gullible. I find it more sensible to be
guided by what other intelligent people around you are actually doing
and learn in that way what they really think.
This is the era of woman's emancipation and the most intellectual and
leading women of to-day believe that woman is the equal of man; and has
as much right as he to the privileges and freedom of action, in every
direction, which he was able so long and so unfairly to reserve for
himself. As other women think that way about it and it's much more
satisfactory to me, I thoroughly agree with them. Marriage is an
agreement between equals, a partnership for mutual convenience and
happiness, and exactly the same obligations apply to one, as the other.
If men find pleasure in smoking and drinking and gambling and flirting
with pretty women, why shouldn't I smoke and drink and gamble and flirt
with attractive men? If other women paint their faces, or dye their
hair, or wear short skirts to show their silk stockings, or low-necked
and low-backed gowns, to make themselves more attractive, why shouldn't
I?
In regard to my children, I love them, of course, and I believe in
bringing them up in accordance with modern, enlightened ideas. First of
all, I want their love and affection--the pleasure of having them run to
me and throw their arms about me, when I come into the room. If I scold
them and spank them and keep interfering with their natural instincts, I
might end up by making them afraid of me--as they are of their father. I
don't want that. I much prefer to pet them and spoil them and find
excuses for them.
I have so many interests and engagements of my own to attend
to,--social, civic, musical, charitable--that I haven't much time or
nerves left, to devote to my children. An up-to-date emancipated woman
could hardly be expected to subject herself to that kind of hum-drum
strain, in any case. My nervous system is very highly organized and
their restless activity makes me irritable. I couldn't stand very much
of it--even if I didn't have my own affairs to occupy most of my time. I
always try to make it a point, however, to see them and kiss them and
have them throw their arms about me, before going to bed. I get the best
nurse I can for them--the present one is a Swede, the last one,
Irish--but they seem to be such stupid, cranky things! However, one
thing I insist upon--they are not to slap the children, and are to let
them have their own way, as far as possible. And I make it equally plain
to the children that if they have any grievance, they needn't mind about
their father--all they have to do is come to me, and throw their arms
about my neck, and I will do the best to straighten it out for them.
That does a great deal to help me keep their affection.
If I get tired of my husband and cease to love him (or find some other
man whom I love more), or if my husband neglects and humiliates me and I
find him involved in an affair with another woman; or for any other
reason which seems sufficient to me; I consider it only proper that I
should have the right to go to a divorce court and dissolve the
partnership. As it is an arrangement between equals, for mutual
convenience and happiness, when it ceases to be convenient or agreeable
to me, it is perfectly reasonable that I should withdraw. That is to my
self-interest guided by reason. Thousands upon thousands of other women
are doing it, and no up-to-date enlightened person thinks any the worse
of them--so why shouldn't I?
You, my well meaning, but out-of-date husband, may be imagined as
replying to this briefly as follows:
"What has become of all the deep and beautiful feelings of faith and
devotion and self-sacrifice, which throughout the ages have given a
heavenly significance to the ideal of motherhood and wife-hood? Woman
was not made in the same mold as man and such was evidently not the
intention of the all-wise Creator. But in man's imagination and in his
better nature, the essence of woman's purpose and greatness has appeared
to consist in being a sort of guardian angel of the home and family. Her
crown was made of purity, chastity, modesty, infinite tenderness and
patience and underlying fidelity to her sacred cause. It is to her in
this capacity, with such a crown upon her head, that the noblest of men
have been willing to bow down, in humbleness and submission, not as to
an equal, or a rival in worldly prowess, but as to a superior and more
exquisite soul.
"That is the birthright of woman, the glory of her creation, yet between
your petty motives of self-interest and the up-to-date enlightenment of
your intellect, you are trying to argue it off the face of the earth.
You have exchanged a spiritual ideal of womanhood for a material mess of
pottage."
* * * * *
There have been plenty of vain and selfish women, in the past, just as
there have been profligate women and immoral men; but in the communities
of the past, where faith and aspiration were wont to flourish and be
sustained and encouraged by religion, such selfishness was not to be
avowed or imitated. In the light of finer and more spiritual feelings,
it appeared as a deficiency and corruption of character. But in the
up-to-date rule of reason, backed by the analysis and conclusions of
science, there is no need to conceal it, or excuse it. It is the strong
minds, not the weak ones, which set the example; the enlightened,
scientific, matter-of-fact intellects, which proclaim the principle and
encourage the timid and less advanced to follow in their wake.
As regards the training of children, up-to-date considerations of
self-interest on the part of the parents, mixed in with instinctive
love, as I have suggested by my illustration, would naturally result in
giving them an early start on the broad highway of calculating
selfishness.
All the imposing school houses which dot the length and breadth of our
land--public-schools, private-schools, boarding-schools--are constructed
and administered in accordance with modern principles. In them no effort
is spared to educate and enlighten the youthful intellect. It is trained
in scientific information, and scientific methods, and scientific habits
of thought. Rewards of one kind or another--diplomas, marks, privileges,
prizes--are designed to operate as a stimulant for intellectual endeavor
and excellence. Also considerable effort is expended, to care for health
and develop the body, in accordance with scientific principles. In the
gymnasium and on the athletic field, prizes are given to stimulate
excellence in this branch of endeavor.
But where, in all these institutions, are scientific professors devoting
an equal amount of energy to the care and development of the feelings
and sentiments of the spiritual nature? Where are the teachers of
modesty and self-denial? Of cheerfulness and sympathy and consideration
for others? Of sincerity, honor, fidelity,--conscience, aspiration, and
faith in a mysterious, all-wise destiny? Where are the prizes and marks
to stimulate endeavor in these? What eloquent and inspiring assurance
does this science give to the youthful soul that its delicate feelings
are of more importance in the life of man than any excellence of the
body, or the intellect?
A simple, old-fashioned mother, who loved her children with her whole
soul, might go a long way toward supplying this need. With no thought of
self-interest, but with a feeling of deepest devotion to them and their
welfare, she was usually more than willing, to do all that seemed best
for their spiritual growth, with the help of God. In this inspired
cause, she had no thought of sparing herself, or them, from self-denial
or self-sacrifice. Such an undertaking on the part of motherhood has
generally been regarded as a beautiful thing, the most beautiful and
sublime on earth--perhaps for the very reason that it calls for so much
self-denial and is so completely devoid of selfishness.
But an up-to-date mother, reasonably persuaded that she is the equal and
rival of her husband in worldly pursuits, could hardly be expected to
handicap herself in any such way. In accordance with the principle of
self-interest and the rule of reason, she can make a much more
convenient and agreeable arrangement. The money which her husband
provides can be used to hire nurses and governesses, who will take the
children off her hands; and at an early age they can be sent away to a
first-class school and so relieve her of all bother and responsibility.
After that, comes college and then, of course, the rest is their affair.
While they are little, she can kiss them good-night and feel their
little arms about her neck and dote on their tender affection; and
later, when they come back from school for their vacations, she can make
a great fuss about them and let everybody admire the fond and foolish
demonstrations of a mother's love.
With due regard for the variations and differences of degree which occur
in specific cases, does this not represent, both with regard to
up-to-date women and the training of up-to-date children, the general
underlying tendency which is causing so much comment? It can hardly by
any stretch of the imagination, be attributed to the world war,
especially as it was already in evidence before the war. But, as we have
tried to make plain, it can be traced very simply and almost directly to
the influences and effects of the modern scientific movement, and the
matter-of-fact habit of mind engendered by it, which accepts as a
logical conclusion, the principle of self-interest and the rule of
reason.
If we continue to follow our clue in other directions, wherever the
up-to-date principles, or lack of principle, have been causing comment,
disturbing traditions, or appearing as a spirit of unrest, we find them
susceptible of the same general observations and the same general
explanation.
A distinctly modern idea, that the nations of the world, as well as the
individuals, should forever remain at peace; and that all differences
between them should be settled by arbitration, is a typical product of
the modern and scientific intellect. It has been much talked of lately
and widely endorsed by logical persons. It is perfectly in accord with
the principle of self-interest and the rule of reason. There is no
rational justification for the immense loss of life, suffering,
destruction and devastation caused by war. The only trouble about the
principle is that, as it deals with human beings, there is with this, as
with other questions of conduct, that same unknown factor--the spiritual
side of man's nature. One of the most fundamental feelings of
manhood--true for a nation, as it is for an individual--is that it is
right, sublimely and everlastingly right, for a man to fight for his
wife and children, to fight for his home and native land, to fight for
honor and to fight for right, as his conscience points to it.
It was in obedience to such a feeling that countless devout Christians,
in the Middle Ages, fought and killed to uphold their religion. Their
consciences did not reprove them, it inspired them--notwithstanding the
curious fact that one of the doctrines of their Bible was "to resist not
evil" and to "turn the other cheek." But the fundamental feelings within
them, of right and wrong, of faith and aspiration, were stronger than a
creed.
The same thing was true of one of the wisest and most spiritual men who
ever lived--Abraham Lincoln. In his conscience, he felt it was right for
slaves to be freed and for the integrity of our nation to be preserved,
no matter how great the cost of life and suffering and devastation.
The decisions of a board of arbitration, of cold intellects, basing
their decisions on reasons of expediency, or abstract and scientific
principles of a worldly kind, could not satisfy such feelings, or be
permitted to override them. Lincoln would not, and could not, have felt
justified in abandoning his cause to the opinion of European intellects,
any more than the militant Christians could have their faith regulated
by the decisions of Chinese and Persians.
It is in recognition of this principle, that up to the present time
questions which may affect the honor of a nation have not been
considered a fit subject for arbitration. As long as faith and
aspiration and their kindred feelings are in the ascendant, conscience
will tell the individual, as it will tell the nation, that certain
things cannot and must not be abandoned, even at the cost of life.
If through the influence of the rule of reason, such a conception may be
overlooked by the enlightened intellects of W.J. Bryan and Woodrow
Wilson, and a host of other well-educated people, that fact in itself
may be regarded as an additional symptom of the extent to which modern
scientific training has spread confusion in the sentiments of the
present generation.
Countless people are to be met with every day whose strongest inner
feelings are not strong enough to revolt at the thought of being passed
upon, or decided against, by the matter-of-fact arbitration of reason.
I could not love thee, dear, so well
Loved I not honor more.
The meaning of those inspired words, to the average up-to-date mind, is
so lacking in common-sense and self-interest, as to appear simple
silliness.
The other day, I was talking to a friend about the bringing up of our
boys and, in the course of our conversation, he expressed a sentiment
which struck me as profoundly significant. He said: "I would rather have
my boy _be_ something fine, even if he got nowhere by it, than to see
him receive recognition and reward for doing something not so fine--and
I would rather have my boy feel that way about it, too."
By way of illustration, if a bully were kicking a little tot, my friend
would rather have his boy fight the bully and get licked and rolled in
the dust, than to see his boy win first prize and much applause, for
out-boxing a boy smaller than himself.
Of course that is quite contrary to up-to-date principles and scientific
enlightenment. There is no course in any of the high schools which
teaches that sentiment, and the whole tendency of scientific training is
to judge things by their tangible results. Moreover, the rule of reason
would decide that your boy is not justified in resorting to a fight,
under any circumstances. He might get hurt, or hurt somebody else. The
propriety and right of the bully to do his kicking, should be settled by
arbitration. An impartial investigation might determine that the little
tot had done something to irritate the bully to such an extent that his
display of anger and brutality was but a natural reaction.
Again and again, we arrive at the same underlying observation and
explanation. The intellect, scientifically enlightened, would argue away
and take the place of innate, inspired feelings, whose faith has been
correspondingly impaired and shaken by the breaking down of religious
shelter and sustenance.
The relative passing away of honor in the business affairs of man, and
its replacement by technical and hair-splitting calculations of
legality, which pass for honesty; the system of graft and pull and
private benefit, which appears to have permeated and fastened itself
upon most of the political machines in most of the cities of our land;
the personal immorality, or unmorality, and practical cynicism, which
are so much in evidence, even among the best educated and most
enlightened--especially among the best educated and most enlightened--in
public and in private, in their own homes and in their neighbors' homes,
as well as in the divorce courts; the conduct of the up-to-date young
men, turned out by our most progressive schools--those of the leading
families, no less than those in humbler walks of life--their increasing
readiness to treat every pretty girl they meet as a proper field of
endeavor and a possible instrument of pleasure; and the corresponding
attitude among thoroughly educated and up-to-date girls, in accepting
and welcoming such treatment; all these characteristic symptoms of the
modern spirit, of the so-called "unrest," need not be referred, in any
but a secondary and accessory way, to the after effects of a war, which
did not begin until their line of progress was already plainly
indicated.
Instead of that, with all these symptoms in mind, let us sum up the
logical effect upon the average individual of our progressive methods
and training.
Does he not say to himself, and should he not be expected to say to
himself:
"This is a wonderful age we live in, with the automobile, telephone,
moving picture, victrola, and all the other inventions. Modern science
is the greatest thing ever. And one of the biggest things it has done
was to puncture a lot of old-fashioned superstitions and conventions, so
that nowadays no sensible person need believe in them. Each person can
run his own life in his own way, in accordance with the dictates of his
own reason. Of course, there are the laws--but barring prohibition,
which everybody breaks,--there's nothing in the others that a reasonable
person need have trouble with."
The obvious tendency of this is toward unmorality, rather than
immorality--what is good for self, in the eyes of self, without
reference to religion, tradition or convention. The fundamental feelings
of faith and aspiration which found protection and expression in those
forms have been obscured and disregarded in the confusion of the
break-down. Also the practical wisdom and accumulated experience of
ages, which were crystallized in them, has gone by the board in the same
way. Modern science has scuttled the ships which carried them. The
material desires of each individual, left to the judgment of the
individual intellect, are apt to be treated with a certain amount of
indulgence--even when the intellect has received the full benefit of
modern scientific enlightenment. Unmorality, lack of restraint, lack of
faith and aspiration, self-indulgence and pleasure seeking in all its
forms--this is the natural and inevitable consequence of the kind of
progress which modern science is accomplishing, in connection with the
conduct of the individual.
Is not this a perfectly plausible explanation for the condition of
affairs which the English author describes so concisely, without
apparently comprehending?
"We are a nation without standards, kept in health rather by memories
which are fading than by examples which are compelling.... We have
become a mob breaking impatiently loose from the discipline and ideals
of our past.... Everything is sensual and ostentatious."