Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Conservative (Nebraska City, Neb.) 1898-1902 | View Entire Issue (March 29, 1900)
Conservative * Hedonism of the utilitarian school is a myth as an ethical stono. Unfortunately it furnishes the excuse for a vast deal of immorality. It provides a flourishing plant for the immoralities of the liquor question. Man was not made to bo happy , any more than ho was made to survive in the struggle for existence. Ho may bo happy if ho can. Ho may be happy if ho has the might of sur vival. In all this moral heterogeneity there is homogeneity. Scientific navi gators have only investigated shoal waters. Drop the plummet to the very bottom of the cosmic sea. There is the solid bottom of ethics. It is rock- bottom. If one examines the plummet carefully ho will find a homogeneous material in the deep-soundings. Ho will discover all these heterogeneous theories and methods springing out of a common necessity. When ho investigates closer he will see that this necessity , this universal force driving men uncon ditionally in so many varied directions , was and is the necessity to live. This is the one imperial necessity. It is abso lute. It knows no law. All men , all nations , admit its superiority to all law. Not all know that it is the stimulus to all law , and every social organization or institution. All law recognizes it. That force which knows no law , that force which is beyond all law , that force which is the basis of all morality , no matter how heterogeneous its mauifes tation , is the ethical necessity or stimulus to live. Solf-PrcHcrvntlon the First Law. The ethical stimulus in all things is that "first law , " self-preservation. "Whether the preserving stimulus is ethical or not depends on whether the individual has the ethical might to make it self-preserving. The corner stone of the temple of ethics is the might that rnaketh survival possible. The ethical stimulus , self-preservation , is insepar able from all that lives. But that is not the ethical fundament. None is born moral or immoral. The ethical stimulus is innate , but the majority born to life have not the might of mature survival Only the insignificant minority are born ethical. The unethical sink into the cosmic sea in accordance with their might to buffet successfully its stormy waves. But few reach maturity. Man is no exception. In one thing man is exceptional. Ethically he has differen tiated himself from all living things. It is not that ho has a moral nature superior to all things. On the contrary it is that with the stimulus to live as strong if not stronger than other living things , man has an ethical nature inferior to any of them. Man is the only liying thing that takes pleasure in slow suicide. This gross immorality finds its origin in two antagonistic fields of vision. Teleology which asserts that all things were created for man.and utilitarian Hedonism \fbioh teaches that the end 'of ' life is to seek happiness or to bo happy. Two more immoral misconceptions wore never fecundated in that matrix of error , the human brain. This Hedouistio-toleologi- cal misconception is direct evidence that man is still among the unfit. The liquor evil could not flourish like a green bay tree wore it not so. The exceptional fit alone save the race. It crucifies them. Man Is a Prostitute. Ho knowoth the law but walkoth not ihorein. Houco the few ethical sur- ivals. Those who attain to four score ears by reason of their might are rare udoed. The struggle for existence is ho sieve which separates the unethical ; oats from the ethical sheep. The weak are found wanting. The cosmic balance s true. Few know how to adjust it. They survive. Ethical might is the moral life-preserver. The might to sur vival is that ethical rock which is alone fitted to build an impregnable moral Gibraltar upon. The Law of SurvHal. Might is right. The law of ethical survival is infallible. It applies to the norganic as well as the organic. Noth- : ng could probably be more antagonistic to the prevailing emotionalism than the announcement of might as the ethical basis of right. Right without might existoth not. It is a contradictio ad absurdum. The consumption of liquor in a Hedonistic sense , or as an article of food , is declared to be an evil , but unless the people have the might to make it so their declaration is in vain. Americans are mighty at resolutions but weak in making them effective. If resolutions would kill the liquor business the public would not bo paying the bill for accrued damages. Virtue without might to make it virtuous soon falls by the way side. Public virtue is an ignis fatuus. Individual virtue has the same weakness. Good resolutions , unless laid in ethical might , pave the way to misery and make it smooth. The greater part of morality travels by that road. Actual morality is mighty to save. Most writers on ethics resemble navigators in a rotten ship , on an unknown sea , without a compass. Some one declared that "cosmic nature is no school of virtue. " That which is not of the cosmos oxisteth not. Superficial variation in moral condi tions is easily understood. Environ ment varies. Man varies. The ethical desire varies not. The might to make it ethical varies in individuals as man varies in stature and intelligence. Even though they have the might , the diver sity of gifts so varies that with the same environment men would vary all over the moral compass in their methods of meeting the vicissitudes of life. Forget it not , varied as are the moral methods , the stimulus to life is as universal as is the law that only those possessing the might to rnako the stimulus mighty in survival fulfill the law of self-preserva tion. The ethical desire is universal. The ethical might is individual. Hence , ho Darwinian law. The fittest are mighty and survive. The ethical homo- enoity is in the stimulus and the prin- iplo of survival. The heterogeneity is n the variations in environment and divergency of moral methods adapted to vorcomiug environment by individuals f widely diversified might. There is lomogeuoity again in the non-survival if the weakly unfit. The Immorality of Altruism. Another great cause of moral hetero geneity is the antagonism between the osmic ethical principle and that unfit mmoral misconception , altruism ; or .hat . immorality which consists only in living for the good of others. " Its antagonism to cosmic ethics is evident > vhou wo think that the majority would not so live if they could and could not if shoy would. If salvation from sin , : nortal or post-mortal , is dependent on ; hat kind of anarchy the world is doomed. There is hope ! What despora- ; ion man is in to deceive himself 1 Verily , man is a coward. Cowardice is unethical. Ethical homogeneity , on a self-sacrificial basis , is impossible. It is anti-cosmic. No two persons could agree on the conditions. It is inappli cable to all sorts and conditions of men. Self-preservation is the inevitable neces sity. All seek it. The might to main tain it is the conditio sine qua uon. It is the universal ethical standard. None other survives. It is the moral focus. The result of the conflict between the cosmically ethical fit and the products of the hot-house stimulated unfit , nourished by altruism , is to bo seen in the existing social anarchy. Altruism is an emotional insanity that supplies its share of unfit to "multiply and replenish the earth" according to their kind. Ethical might cannot bo maintained except - copt by the most rigid sexual selection of those fit to produce might. The fittest survive. When the unfit are ethical then indeed will the "cosmos be no school of virtue. " Accepted author ity is often troubled with motes in its eyes. Its self-constituted dilemmas are amusing. It tolls us in one breath that "the cosmos is no school of virtue" and in the next that "adversity is the best school of virtue. " The struggle for existence is certainly the school of adversity. The surviving fit must bo the best. The might to survive must bo the ethical criterion. The "brutal savage" who creates such consternation in the ranks of morbid emotionalism is that unethical beast who uses his might to his own danger or destruction. The murderer is a fitting example. The drunkard is his foster brother. The ambitious , who wreck then ? constitution to feed an insane vanity.are close akin.
