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.