{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_15545/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_15545","id":"gutenberg_15545","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15545","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Theosophy"],"text":"Produced by Jonathan Ingram, David Garcia and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team.\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note: Accented characters with macrons are marked in this\nfile as [=x], while those with inferior dots are marked as [x.].]\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BASIS OF MORALITY\n\nBY\n\nANNIE BESANT\n\n\n\nAUTHOR OF\n\n  _Mysticism, The Immediate Future,\n  Initiation: The Perfecting of Man,\n  Superhuman Men, etc. etc._\n\n\n\n  THEOSOPHICAL PUBLISHING HOUSE\n  ADYAR, MADRAS, INDIA\n  1915\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n    I. REVELATION\n   II. INTUITION\n  III. UTILITY\n   IV. EVOLUTION\n    V. MYSTICISM\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nREVELATION\n\n\nMust religion and morals go together? Can one be taught without the\nother? It is a practical question for educationists, and France tried\nto answer it in the dreariest little cut and dry kind of catechism ever\ngiven to boys to make them long to be wicked. But apart from education,\nthe question of the bedrock on which morals rest, the foundation on\nwhich a moral edifice can be built that will stand secure against the\nstorms of life--that is a question of perennial interest, and it must\nbe answered by each of us, if we would have a test of Right and Wrong,\nwould know why Right is Right, why Wrong is Wrong.\n\nReligions based on Revelation find in Revelation their basis for\nmorality, and for them that is Right which the Giver of the Revelation\ncommands, and that is Wrong which He forbids. Right is Right because\nGod, or a [R.][s.]hi or a Prophet, commands it, and Right rests on the\nWill of a Lawgiver, authoritatively revealed in a Scripture.\n\nNow all Revelation has two great disadvantages as a basis for morality.\nIt is fixed, and therefore unprogressive; while man evolves, and at a\nlater stage of his growth, the morality taught in the Revelation becomes\narchaic and unsuitable. A written book cannot change, and many things in\nthe Bibles of Religion come to be out of date, inappropriate to new\ncircumstances, and even shocking to an age in which conscience has\nbecome more enlightened than it was of old.\n\nThe fact that in the same Revelation as that in which palpably immoral\ncommands appear, there occur also jewels of fairest radiance, gems of\npoetry, pearls of truth, helps us not at all. If moral teachings worthy\nonly of savages occur in Scriptures containing also rare and precious\nprecepts of purest sweetness, the juxtaposition of light and darkness\nonly produces moral chaos. We cannot here appeal to reason or judgment\nfor both must be silent before authority; both rest on the same ground.\n\"Thus saith the Lord\" precludes all argument.\n\nLet us take two widely accepted Scriptures, both regarded as\nauthoritative by the respective religions which accept them as coming\nfrom a Divine Preceptor or through a human but illuminated being, Moses\nin the one case, Manu in the other. I am, of course, well aware that\nin both cases we have to do with books which may contain traditions of\ntheir great authors, even sentences transmitted down the centuries.\nThe unravelling of the tangled threads woven into such books is a work\nneeding the highest scholarship and an infinite patience; few of us\nare equipped for such labour. But let us ignore the work of the Higher\nCriticism, and take the books as they stand, and the objection raised\nto them as a basis for morality will at once appear.\n\nThus we read in the same book: \"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any\ngrudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself.\" \"The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be\nunto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for\nye were strangers in the land of Egypt.\" \"Sanctify yourselves therefore\nand be ye holy.\" Scores of noble passages, inculcating high morality,\nmight be quoted. But we have also: \"If thy brother, the son of thy\nmother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy\nfriend which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly saying, let us\ngo and serve other Gods ... thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken\nunto him; neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare,\nneither shalt thou conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him; thine\nhand shall be first upon him to put him to death.\" \"Thou shalt not\nsuffer a witch to live.\" A man is told, that he may seize a fair woman\nin war, and \"be her husband and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be\nthat if thou hast no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither\nshe will.\" These teachings and many others like them have drenched\nEurope with blood and scorched it with fire. Men have grown out of\nthem; they no longer heed nor obey them, for man's reason performs its\neclectic work on Revelation, chooses the good, rejects the evil. This\nis very good, but it destroys Revelation as a basis. Christians have\noutgrown the lower part of their Revelation, and do not realise that\nin striving to explain it away they put the axe to the root of its\nauthority.\n\nSo also is it with the Institutes of Manu, to take but one example\nfrom the great sacred literature of India. There are precepts of\nthe noblest order, and the essence and relative nature of morality is\nphilosophically set out; \"the sacred law is thus grounded on the rule\nof conduct,\" and He declares that good conduct is the root of further\ngrowth in spirituality. Apart from questions of general morality, to\nwhich we shall need to refer hereafter, let us take the varying views\nof women as laid down in the present Sm[r.][t.]i as accepted. On many\npoints there is no wiser guide than parts of this Sm[r.][t.]i, as will\nbe seen in Chapter IV. With regard to the marriage law, Manu says:\n\"Let mutual fidelity continue unto death.\" Of a father He declares:\n\"No father who knows must take even the smallest gratuity for his\ndaughter; for a man, who through avarice takes a gratuity, is a seller\nof his offspring.\" Of the home, He says: \"Women must be honoured and\nadorned by their fathers, husbands, brothers and brothers-in-law who\ndesire happiness. Where women are honoured, there the [D.]evas are\npleased; but where they are not honoured, any sacred rite is fruitless.\"\n\"In that family where the husband is pleased with his wife and the\nwife with her husband [note the equality], happiness will assuredly be\nlasting.\" Food is to be given first in a house to \"newly-married women,\nto infants, to the sick, and to pregnant women\". Yet the same Manu is\nsupposed to have taken the lowest and coarsest view of women: \"It is\nthe nature of women to seduce men; for that reason the wise are never\nunguarded with females ... One should not sit in a lonely place with\none's mother, sister or daughter; for the senses are powerful, and\nmaster even a learned man.\" A woman must never act \"independently, even\nin her own house,\" she must be subject to father, husband or (on her\nhusband's death) sons. Women have allotted to them as qualities, \"impure\ndesires, wrath, dishonesty, malice and bad conduct\". The Sh[=u][d.]ra\nservant is to be \"regarded as a younger son\"; a slave is to be looked\non \"as one's shadow,\" and if a man is offended by him he \"must bear it\nwithout resentment\"; yet the most ghastly punishments are ordered to be\ninflicted on Sh[=u][d.]ras for intruding on certain sacred rites.\n\nThe net result is that ancient Revelations, being given for a certain\nage and certain social conditions, often cannot and ought not to be\ncarried out in the present state of Society; that ancient documents are\ndifficult to verify--often impossible--as coming from those whose names\nthey bear; that there is no guarantee against forgeries, interpolations,\nglosses, becoming part of the text, with a score of other imperfections;\nthat they contain contradictions, and often absurdities, to say nothing\nof immoralities. Ultimately every Revelation must be brought to the bar\nof reason, and as a matter of fact, is so brought in practice, even the\nmost \"orthodox\" Br[=a]hma[n.]a in Hin[d.][=u]ism, disregarding all the\nSh[=a]s[t.]raic injunctions which he finds to be impracticable or even\ninconvenient, while he uses those which suit him to condemn his\n\"unorthodox\" neighbours.\n\nNo Revelation is accepted as fully binding in any ancient religion, but\nby common consent the inconvenient parts are quietly dropped, and the\nevil parts repudiated. Revelation as a basis for morality is impossible.\nBut all sacred books contain much that is pure, lofty, inspiring,\nbelonging to the highest morality, the true utterances of the Sages and\nSaints of mankind. These precepts will be regarded with reverence by the\nwise, and should be used as authoritative teaching for the young and the\nuninstructed as moral textbooks, like--textbooks in other sciences--and\nas containing moral truths, some of which can be verified by all morally\nadvanced persons, and others verifiable only by those who reach the\nlevel of the original teachers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nINTUITION\n\n\nWhen scholarship, reason and conscience have made impossible the\nacceptance of Revelation as the bedrock of morality, the\nstudent--especially in the West--is apt next to test \"Intuition\" as a\nprobable basis for ethics. In the East, this idea has not appealed to\nthe thinker in the sense in which the word Intuition is used in the\nWest. The moralist in the East has based ethics on Revelation, or on\nEvolution, or on Illumination--the last being the basis of the Mystic.\nIntuition--which by moralists like Theodore Parker, Frances Power Cobb,\nand many Theists, is spoken of as the \"Voice of God\" in the human\nsoul--is identified by these with \"conscience,\" so that to base morality\non Intuition is equivalent to basing it on conscience, and making the\ndictate of conscience the categorical imperative, the inner voice which\ndeclares authoritatively \"Thou shalt,\" or \"Thou shalt not\".\n\nNow it is true that for each individual there is no better, no safer,\nguide than his own conscience and that when the moralist says to the\ninquirer: \"Obey your conscience\" he is giving him sound ethical advice.\nNone the less is the thinker faced with an apparently insuperable\ndifficulty in the way of accepting conscience as an ethical basis; for\nhe finds the voice of conscience varying with civilisation, education,\nrace, religion, traditions, customs, and if it be, indeed, the voice\nof God in man, he cannot but see--in a sense quite different from that\nintended by the writer--that God \"in divers manners spoke in past\ntimes\". Moreover he observes, as an historical fact, that some of the\nworst crimes which have disgraced humanity have been done in obedience\nto the voice of conscience. It is quite clear that Cromwell at Drogheda\nwas obeying conscience, was doing that which he conscientiously believed\nto be the Will of God; and there is no reason to doubt that a man like\nTorquemada was also carrying out what he conscientiously believed to be\nthe Divine Will in the war which he waged against heresy through the\nInquisition.\n\nIn this moral chaos, with such a clash of discordant \"Divine Voices,\"\nwhere shall sure guidance be found? One recalls the bitter gibe of Laud\nto the Puritan, who urged that he must follow his conscience: \"Yea,\nverily; but take heed that thy conscience be not the conscience of a\nfool.\"\n\nConscience speaks with authority, whenever it speaks at all. Its voice\nis imperial, strong and clear. None the less is it often uninformed,\nmistaken, in its dictate. There _is_ an Intuition which is verily\nthe voice of the Spirit in man, in the God-illuminated man, which is\ndealt with in the fifth chapter. But the Intuition recognised in the\nWest, and identified with conscience, is something far other.\n\nFor the sake of clarity, we must define what conscience is since we have\nsaid what it is not: that it is not the voice of the Spirit in man, that\nit is not the voice of God.\n\nConscience is the result of the accumulated experience gained by each\nman in his previous lives. Each of us is an Immortal Spirit, a Divine\nfragment, a Self: \"A fragment of mine own Self, transformed in the\nworld of life into an immortal Spirit, draweth round itself the senses,\nof which the mind is the sixth, veiled in Matter.\" Such is each man. He\nevolves into manifested powers all the potentialities unfolded in him by\nvirtue of his divine parentage, and this is effected by repeated births\ninto this world, wherein he gathers experience, repeated deaths out of\nthis world into the other twain--the wheel of births and deaths turns\nin the [T.]riloka, the three worlds--wherein he reaps in pain the\nresults of experiences gathered by disregard of law, and assimilates,\ntransforming into faculty, moral and mental, the results of experience\ngathered in harmony with law. Having transmuted experience into faculty,\nhe returns to earth for the gathering of new experience, dealt with\nas before after physical death. Thus the Spirit unfolds, or the man\nevolves--whichever expression is preferred to indicate this growth.\nVery similarly doth the physical body grow; a man eats food; digests it,\nassimilates it, transmutes it into the materials of his body; ill food\ncauses pain, even disease; good food strengthens, and makes for growth.\nThe outer is a reflection of the inner.\n\nNow conscience is the sum total of the experiences in past lives which\nhave borne sweet and bitter fruit, according as they were in accord or\ndisaccord with surrounding natural law. This sum total of _physical_\nexperiences, which result in increased or diminished life, we call\ninstinct, and it is life-preserving. The sum total of our interwoven\n_mental and moral_ experiences, in our relations with others, is\nmoral instinct, or conscience, and it is harmonising, impels to\n\"good\"--a word which we shall define in our fourth chapter.\n\nHence conscience depends on the experiences through which we have passed\nin previous lives, and is necessarily an individual possession. It\ndiffers where the past experience is different, as in the savage and the\ncivilised man, the dolt and the talented, the fool and the genius, the\ncriminal and the saint. The voice of God would speak alike in all; the\nexperience of the past speaks differently in each. Hence also the\nconsciences of men at a similar evolutionary level speak alike on broad\nquestions of right and wrong, good and evil. On these the \"voice\" is\nclear. But there are many questions whereon past experience fails us,\nand then conscience fails to speak. We are in doubt; two apparent duties\nconflict; two ways seem equally right or equally wrong. \"I do not know\nwhat I _ought_ to do,\" says the perplexed moralist, hearing no\ninner voice. In such cases, we must seek to form the best judgment we\ncan, and then act boldly. If unknowingly we disregard some hidden law we\nshall suffer, and _that_ experience will be added to our sum total,\nand in similar circumstances in the future, conscience, through the aid\nof this added experience, will have found a voice.\n\nHence we may ever, having judged as best we can, act boldly, and learn\nincreased wisdom from the result.\n\nMuch moral cowardice, paralysing action, has resulted from the Christian\nidea of \"sin,\" as something that incurs the \"wrath of God,\" and that\nneeds to be \"forgiven,\" in order to escape an artificial--not a\nnatural--penalty. We gain knowledge by experience, and disregard of a\nlaw, where it is not known, should cause us no distress, no remorse, no\n\"repentance,\" only a quiet mental note that we must in future remember\nthe law which we disregarded and make our conduct harmonise therewith.\nWhere conscience does not speak, how shall we act? The way is well known\nto all thoughtful people: we first try to eliminate all personal desire\nfrom the consideration of the subject on which decision is needed, so\nthat the mental atmosphere may not be rendered a distorting medium by\nthe mists of personal pleasure or pain; next, we place before us all the\ncircumstances, giving each its due weight; then, we decide; the next\nstep depends on whether we believe in Higher Powers or not; if we do, we\nsit down quietly and alone; we place our decision before us; we suspend\n_all_ thought, but remain mentally alert--all mental ear, as it\nwere; we ask for help from God, from our Teacher, from our own Higher\nSelf; into that silence comes the decision. We obey it, without further\nconsideration, and then we watch the result, and judge by that of the\nvalue of the decision, for it may have come from the higher or from\nthe lower Self. But, as we did our very best, we feel no trouble, even\nif the decision should be wrong and bring us pain. We have gained an\nexperience, and will do better next time. The trouble, the pain, we have\nbrought on ourselves by our ignorance, we note, as showing that we have\ndisregarded a law, and we profit by the additional knowledge in the\nfuture.\n\nThus understanding conscience, we shall not take it as a basis of\nmorality, but as our best available individual light. We shall judge\nour conscience, educate it, evolve it by mental effort, by careful\nobservation. As we learn more, our conscience will develop; as we act\nup to the highest we can see, our vision will become ever clearer, and\nour ear more sensitive. As muscles develop by exercise, so conscience\ndevelops by activity, and as we use our lamp it burns the more brightly.\nBut let it ever be remembered that it is a man's own experience that\nmust guide him, and his own conscience that must decide. To overrule the\nconscience of another is to induce in him moral paralysis, and to seek\nto dominate the will of another is a crime.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nUTILITY\n\n\nTo those whose intelligence and conscience had revolted against the\ncrude and immoral maxims mixed up with noble precepts in Revelation; to\nthose who recognised the impossibility of accepting the varying voices\nof Intuition as a moral guide; to all those the theory that Morality was\nbased on Utility, came as a welcome and rational relief. It promised a\nscientific certitude to moral precepts; it left the intellect free to\ninquire and to challenge; it threw man back on grounds which were found\nin this world alone, and could be tested by reason and experience; it\nderived no authority from antiquity, no sanction from religion; it stood\nentirely on its own feet, independently of the many conflicting elements\nwhich were found in the religions of the past and present.\n\nThe basis for morality, according to Utility, is the greatest happiness\nof the greatest number; that which conduces to the greatest happiness of\nthe greatest number is Right; that which does not is Wrong.\n\nThis general maxim being laid down, it remains for the student to study\nhistory, to analyse experience, and by a close and careful investigation\ninto human nature and human relations to elaborate a moral code which\nwould bring about general happiness and well-being. This, so far, has\nnot been done. Utility has been a \"hand-to-mouth\" moral basis, and\ncertain rough rules of conduct have grown up by experience and the\nnecessities of life, without any definite investigation into, or\ncodifying of, experience. Man's moral basis as a rule is a compound of\npartially accepted revelations and partially admitted consciences, with\na practical application of the principle of \"that which works best\". The\nmajority are not philosophers, and care little for a logical basis. They\nare unconscious empirics, and their morality is empirical.\n\nMr. Charles Bradlaugh, considering that the maxim did not sufficiently\nguard the interests of the minority, and that, so far as was possible,\nthese also should be considered and guarded, added another phrase; his\nbasis ran: \"The greatest happiness of the greatest number, with the\nleast injury to any.\" The rule was certainly improved by the addition,\nbut it did not remove many of the objections raised.\n\nIt was urged by the Utilitarian that morality had developed out of the\nsocial side of human beings; that men, as social animals, desired to\nlive in permanent relations with each other, and that this resulted\nin the formation of families; men could not be happy in solitude; the\npersistence of these groups, amid the conflicting interests of the\nindividuals who composed them, could only be secured by recognising that\nthe interests of the majority must prevail, and form the rule of conduct\nfor the whole family. Morality, it was pointed out, thus began in family\nrelations, and conduct which disrupted the family was wrong, while that\nwhich strengthened and consolidated it was right. Thus family morality\nwas established. As families congregated together for mutual protection\nand support, their separate interests as families were found to be\nconflicting, and so a _modus vivendi_ was sought in the same\nprinciple which governed relations within the family: the common\ninterests of the grouped families, the tribe, must prevail over the\nseparate and conflicting interests of the separate families; that which\ndisrupted the tribe was wrong, while that which strengthened and\nconsolidated it was right. Thus tribal morality was established. The\nnext step was taken as tribes grouped themselves together and became\na nation, and morality extended so as to include all who were within\nthe nation; that which disrupted the nation was wrong, and that which\nconsolidated and strengthened it was right. Thus national morality was\nestablished. Further than that, utilitarian morality has not progressed,\nand international relations have not yet been moralised; they remain\nin the savage state, and recognise no moral law. Germany has boldly\naccepted this position, and declares formally that, for the State,\nMight is Right, and that all which the State can do for its own\naggrandisement, for the increase of its power, it may and ought to do,\nfor there is no rule of conduct to which it owes obedience; it is a law\nunto itself. Other nations have not formularised the statement in their\nliterature as Germany has done, but the strong nations have acted upon\nit in their dealings with the weaker nations, although the dawning\nsense of an international morality in the better of them has led to\nthe defence of international wrong by \"the tyrant's plea, necessity\".\nThe most flagrant instance of the utter disregard of right and wrong as\nbetween nations, is, perhaps, the action of the allied European nations\nagainst China--in which the Hun theory of \"frightfulness\" was enunciated\nby the German Kaiser--but the history of nations so far is a history of\ncontinual tramplings on the weak by the strong, and with the coming to\nthe front of the Christian white nations, and their growth in scientific\nknowledge and thereby in power, the coloured nations and tribes, whether\ncivilised or savage, have been continually exploited and oppressed.\nInternational morality, at present, does not exist. Murder within the\nfamily, the tribe, and the nation is marked as a crime, save that\njudicial murder, capital punishment, is permitted--on the principle of\n(supposed) Utility. But multiple murder outside the nation--War--is not\nregarded as criminal, nor is theft \"wrong,\" when committed by a strong\nnation on a weak one. It may be that out of the widespread misery caused\nby the present War, some international morality may be developed.\n\nWe may admit that, as a matter of historical and present fact, Utility\nhas been everywhere tacitly accepted as the basis of morality, defective\nas it is as a theory. Utility is used as the test of Revelation, as the\ntest of Intuition, and precepts of Manu, Zarathushtra, Moses, Christ,\nMuhammad, are acted on, or disregarded, according as they are considered\nto be useful, or harmful, or impracticable, to be suitable or unsuitable\nto the times. Inconsistencies in these matters do not trouble the\n\"practical\" ordinary man.\n\nThe chief attack on the theory of Utility as a basis for morality has\ncome from Christians, and has been effected by challenging the word\n\"happiness\" as the equivalent of \"pleasure,\" the \"greatest number\" as\nequivalent to \"individual,\" and then denouncing the maxim as \"a morality\nfor swine\". \"Virtue\" is placed in antagonism to happiness, and virtue,\nnot happiness, is said to be the right aim for man. This really begs the\nquestion, for what is \"virtue\"? The crux of the whole matter lies there.\nIs \"virtue\" opposed to \"happiness,\" or is it a means to happiness? Why\nis the word \"pleasure\" substituted for \"happiness\" when utility is\nattacked? We may take the second question first.\n\n\"Pleasure,\" in ordinary parlance, means an immediate and transitory\nform of happiness and usually a happiness of the body rather than\nof the emotions and the mind. Hence the \"swine\". A sensual enjoyment\nis a \"pleasure\"; union with God would not be called a pleasure, but\nhappiness. An old definition of man's true object is: \"To know God, and\nto enjoy Him for ever.\" There happiness is clearly made the true end\nof man. The assailant changes the \"greatest happiness of the greatest\nnumber\" into the \"pleasure of the individual,\" and having created this\nman of straw, he triumphantly knocks it down.\n\nDoes not virtue lead to happiness? Is it not a condition of happiness?\nHow does the Christian define virtue? It is obedience to the Will of\nGod. But he only obeys that Will as \"revealed\" so far as it agrees with\nUtility. He no longer slays the heretic, and he suffers the witch to\nlive. He does not give his cloak to the thief who has stolen his coat,\nbut he hands over the thief to the policeman. Moreover, as Herbert\nSpencer pointed out, he follows virtue as leading to heaven; if right\nconduct led him to everlasting torture, would he still pursue it? Or\nwould he revise his idea of right conduct? The martyr dies for the truth\nhe sees, because it is easier _to him_ to die than to betray truth.\nHe could not live on happily as a conscious liar. The nobility of a\nman's character is tested by the things which give him pleasure. The\njoy in following truth, in striving after the noblest he can see--that\nis the greatest happiness; to sacrifice present enjoyment for the\nservice of others is not self-denial, but self-expression, to the Spirit\nwho is man.\n\nWhere Utility fails is that it does not inspire, save where the\nspiritual life is already seen to be the highest happiness of the\nindividual, because it conduces to the good of all, not only of the\n\"greatest number\". Men who thus feel have inspiration from within\nthemselves and need no outside moral code, no compelling external law.\nOrdinary men, the huge majority at the present stage of evolution, need\neither compulsion or inspiration, otherwise they will not control their\nanimal nature, they will not sacrifice an immediate pleasure to a\npermanent increase of happiness, they will not sacrifice personal gain\nto the common good. The least developed of these are almost entirely\ninfluenced by fear of personal pain and wish for personal pleasure; they\nwill not put their hand into the fire, because they know that fire\nburns, and no one accuses them of a \"low motive\" because they do not\nburn themselves; religion shows them that the results of the disregard\nof moral and mental law work out in suffering after death as well as\nbefore it, and that the results of obedience to such laws similarly work\nout in post-mortem pleasure. It thus supplies a useful element in the\nearly stages of moral development.\n\nAt a higher stage, love of God and the wish to \"please Him\" by leading\nan exemplary life is a motive offered by religion, and this inspires to\npurity and to self-sacrifice; again, this is no more ignoble than the\nwish to please the father, the mother, the friend. Many a lad keeps pure\nto please his mother, because he loves her. So religious men try to live\nnobly to please God, because they love Him. At a higher stage yet, the\ngood of the people, the good of the race, of humanity in the future,\nacts as a potent inspiration. But this does not touch the selfish lower\ntypes. Hence Utility fails as a compelling power with the majority, and\nis insufficient as motive. Add to this the radical fault that it does\nnot place morality on a universal basis, the happiness of _all_,\nthat it disregards the happiness of the minority, and its unsatisfactory\nnature is seen. It has much of truth in it; it enters as a determining\nfactor into all systems of ethics, even where nominally ignored or\ndirectly rejected; it is a better basis in theory, though a worse one in\npractice, than either Revelation or Intuition, but it is incomplete.\nWe must seek further for a solid basis of morality.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nEVOLUTION\n\n\nWe come now to the sure basis of morality, the bedrock of Nature,\nwhereon Morality may be built beyond all shaking and change, built as a\nScience with recognised laws, and in a form intelligible and capable of\nindefinite expansion. Evolution is recognised as the method of Nature,\nher method in all her realms, and according to the ascertained laws\nof Nature, so far as they are known, all wise and thoughtful people\nendeavour to guide themselves. In making Morality a Science, we give\nit a binding force, and render it of universal application; moreover,\nwe incorporate into it all the fragments of truth which exist in other\nsystems, and which have lent to them their authority, their appeal to\nthe intellect and the heart.\n\nLet us first define Morality. It is the science of human relations, the\nScience of Conduct, and its laws, as inviolable, as sure, as changeless,\nas all other laws of Nature, can be discovered and formulated. Harmony\nwith these laws, like harmony with all other natural laws, is the\ncondition of happiness, for in a realm of law none can move without\npain while disregarding law. A law of Nature is the statement of an\ninviolable and constant sequence external to ourselves and unchangeable\nby our will, and amid the conditions of these inviolable sequences we\nlive, from these we cannot escape. One choice alone is ours: to live in\nharmony with them or to disregard them; violate them we cannot, but we\ncan dash ourselves against them; then the law asserts itself in the\nsuffering that results from our flinging ourselves against it, or from\nour disregarding its existence; its existence is proved as well by\nthe pain that results from our disregard of it, as by the pleasure\nthat results from our harmony with it. Only a fool deliberately and\ngratuitously disregards a natural law when he knows of its existence;\na man shapes his conduct so as to avoid the pain which results from\nclashing with it, unless he deliberately disregards the pain in view of\na result to be brought about, which he considers to be worth more than\nthe purchase price of pain. The Science of Morality, of Right Conduct,\n\"lays down the conditions of harmonious relations between individuals,\nand their several environments small or large, families, societies,\nnations, humanity as a whole. Only by the knowledge and observance of\nthese laws can men be either permanently healthy or permanently happy,\ncan they live in peace and prosperity. Where morality is unknown or\ndisregarded, friction inevitably arises, disharmony and pain result; for\nNature is a settled Order in the mental and moral worlds as much as in\nthe physical, and only by knowledge of that Order and by obedience to\nit can harmony, health and happiness be secured.\"\n\nThe religious man sees in the laws of Nature the manifestation of the\nDivine Nature, and in obedience to and co-operation with them, he sees\nobedience to and co-operation with the Will of God. The non-religious\nman sees them as sequences he cannot alter, on harmony with which his\nhappiness, his comfort, depends. In either case they have a binding\nforce. The man belonging to any exoteric religion will modify by them\nthe precepts of his Scriptures, realising that morality rises as\nEvolution proceeds. He does thus modify scriptural precepts by practical\nobedience or disregard, whether he do it by theory or not. But it is\nbetter that theory and practice should correspond. The intuitionist\nwill understand that conscience, accumulated experience, has developed\nby experience within these laws. The utilitarian will see that the\nhappiness of all, not only of the greatest number, must be ensured by a\ntrue morality, and will understand why Happiness is the result thereof.\nManu indicates the various bases very significantly: \"The whole Ve[d.]a\nis the source of the Sacred Law [Revelation], next the tradition\n[Conscience] and the virtuous conduct of those who know [Utility],\nalso the customs of holy men [Evolution] and self-satisfaction\n[Mysticism]\" (ii, 6.). It is true that happiness can result only by\nharmony with law, harmony with the Divine Will which is embodied in\nlaw--we need not quarrel over names--and the Science of Right Conduct,\n\"by establishing righteousness brings about Happiness\". It may therefore\nbe truly said that the object of Morality is Universal Happiness. Why\nthe doing of a right action causes a flow of happiness in the doer, even\nin the midst of a keen temporary pain entailed by it, we shall see under\n\"Mysticism\".\n\nThe moment we base Morality on Evolution, we see that it must change\nwith the stage of evolution reached, and that the duty--that which ought\nto be done--of the civilised and highly advanced man is not the same as\nthe duty of the savage. \"One set of duties for men in the K[r.][t.]a\nage, different ones in the Tre[t.][=a] and in the Dv[=a]para, and\nanother in the Kali.\" (_Manusm[r.][t.]i_, i, 85.) Different ages\nbring new duties. But if Morality be based on Evolution we can at once\ndefine what is \"Right\" and what is \"Wrong\". That is Right which\nsubserves Evolution; that is Wrong which antagonises it. Or in other\nwords, for those of us who believe that God's method for this world is\nthe evolutionary: that is Right which co-operates with His Will; that is\nwrong which works against it. \"Revelation\" is an attempt to state this\nat any given time; \"Intuition\" is the result of successful attempts\nto do this; \"Utility\" is the application of observed results of\nhappiness and misery which flow from obedience to this, or disregard\nthereof.\n\nEvolution is the unfolding and manifestation of life-energies, the\nunfolding of the capacities of consciousness, the manifestation of these\never-increasing capacities in ever-improving and more plastic forms.\nThe primary truth of Morality, as of Religion and of Science, is the\nUnity of Life. One Life ever unfolding in endless varieties of forms; the\nessence of all beings is the same, the inequalities are the marks of the\nstage of its unfoldment.\n\nWhen we base Morality on Evolution, we cannot have, it is obvious, one\ncut and dry rule for all. Those who want cut and dry rules must go to\ntheir Scriptures for them, and even then, as the rules in the Scriptures\nare contradictory--both as between Scriptures and within any given\nScripture--they must call in the help of Intuition and Utility in the\nmaking of their code, in their selective process. This selective process\nwill be largely moulded by the public opinion of their country and age,\nemphasising some precepts and ignoring others, and the code will be the\nexpression of the average morality of the time. If this clumsy and\nuncertain fashion of finding a rule of conduct does not suit us, we\nmust be willing to exert our intelligence, to take a large view of the\nevolutionary process, and to deduce our moral precepts at any given\nstage by applying our reason to the scrutiny of this process at that\nstage. This scrutiny is a laborious one; but Truth is the prize of\neffort in the search therefor, it is not an unearned gift to the\nslothful and the careless.\n\nThis large view of the evolutionary process shows us that it is best\nstudied in two great divisions: the first from the savage to the highly\ncivilised man who is still working primarily for himself and his family,\nstill working for private ends predominantly; and the second, at present\nbut sparsely followed, in which the man, realising the supreme claim of\nthe whole upon its part, seeks the public good predominantly, renounces\nindividual advantages and private gains, and consecrates himself to the\nservice of God and of man. The Hindu calls the first section of\nevolution the Prav[r.][t.][t.]i M[=a]rga, the Path of Forthgoing; the\nsecond the Niv[r.][t.][t.]i M[=a]rga, the Path of Return. In the first,\nthe man evolves by taking; in the second, by giving. In the first, he\nincurs debts; in the second, he pays them. In the first, he acquires; in\nthe second, he renounces. In the first, he lives for the profit of the\nsmaller self; in the second, for the service of the One Self. In the\nfirst, he claims Rights; in the second, he discharges Duties.\n\nThus Morality is seen from two view-points, and the virtues it\ncomprises fall into two groups. Men are surrounded on every side by\nobjects of desire, and the use of these is to evoke the desire to\npossess them, to stimulate exertion, to inspire efforts, and thus to\nmake faculty, capacity--strength, intelligence, alertness, judgment,\nperseverance, patience, fortitude. Those who regard the world\nas God-emanated and God-guided, must inevitably realise that the\nrelation of man--susceptible to pleasure and pain by contact with his\nenvironment--to his environment--filled with pleasure and pain-giving\nobjects--must be intended to provoke in man the desire to possess the\npleasure-giving, to avoid the pain-giving. In fact, God's lures to\nexertion are pleasures; His warnings are pains and the interplay between\nman and environment causes evolution. The man who does not believe in\nGod has only to substitute the word \"Nature\" for \"God\" and to leave out\nthe idea of design, and the argument remains the same: man's relation to\nhis environment provokes exertion, and thus evolution. A man on the Path\nof Forthgoing will, at first, seize everything he desires, careless of\nothers, and will gradually learn, from the attacks of the despoiled,\nsome respect for the rights of others; the lesson will be learnt more\nquickly by the teaching of more advanced men--[R.][s.]his, Founders\nof Religions, Sages, and the like--who tell him that if he kills,\nrobs, tramples on others, he will suffer. He does all these things;\nhe suffers; he learns--his post-mortem lives helping him much in the\nlearning. Later on, he lives a more controlled and regulated life, and\nhe may blamelessly enjoy the objects of desire, provided he injure none\nin the taking. Hin[d.][=u]ism lays down, as the proper pursuits for the\nhousehold life, the gaining of wealth, the performance of the duties of\nthe position held, the gratification of desire. The desires will become\nsubtler and more refined as intelligence fashions them and as emotions\nreplace passions; but throughout the treading of the Path of Forthgoing,\nthe \"desire for fruit\" is the necessary and blameless motive for\nexertion. Without this, the man at this stage of evolution becomes\nlethargic and does not evolve. Desire subserves Evolution, and it is\nRight. The gratification of Desire may lead a man to do injury to\nothers, and as soon as he has developed enough to understand this, then\nthe gratification becomes wrong, because, forgetting the Unity, he has\ninflicted harm on one who shares life with him, and has thus hampered\nevolution. The sense of Unity is the root-Love, the Uniter, and Love is\nthe expression of the attraction of the separated towards union; out of\nLove, controlled by reason and by the desire for the happiness of all,\ngrow all Virtues, which are but permanent, universal, specialised\n_forms_ of love. So also is the sense of Separateness the\nroot-Hate, the Divider, the expression of the repulsion of the separated\nfrom each other. Out of this grow all Vices, the permanent, universal,\nspecialised _forms_ of Hate. That which Love does for the Beloved,\nthat Virtue does for all who need its aid, so far as its power extends.\nThat which Hate wreaks on the Abhorred, that Vice does to all who\nobstruct its path, so far as its power extends.\n\n\"Virtues and Vices are fixed emotional states. The Virtues are fixed\nLove-emotions, regulated and controlled by enlightened intelligence\nseeing the Unity; the Vices are fixed Hate-emotions, strengthened and\nintensified by the unenlightened intelligence, seeing the separateness.\"\n(_Universal Text Book_, ii, 32.) It is obvious that virtues are\nconstructive and vices destructive, for Love holds together, while Hate\ndisintegrates. Yet the modified form of Hate--antagonism,\ncompetition--had its part to play in the earlier stages of human\nevolution, developing strength, courage, and endurance, and while Love\nbuilt up Nations within themselves, Hate made each strong against its\ncompetitor. And within Nations, there has been conflict of classes,\nclass and caste war, and all this modified and softened by a growing\nsense of a common good, until Competition, the characteristic of the\nPath of Forthgoing tends to change into Co-operation, the characteristic\nof the Path of Return. The Path of Forthgoing must still be trodden by\nmany, but the number is decreasing; more and more are turning towards\nthe Path of Return. Ideals are formulated by the leaders of Humanity,\nand the Ideals held up to-day are increasingly those of Love and of\nService. \"During the first stage, man grasps at everything he desires\nand develops a strong individuality by conflict; in the second,\nhe shares all he has, and yokes that individuality to service;\never-increasing separation is the key-note of the one; ever-increasing\nunity is the key-note of the other. Hence we need not brand as evil the\nrough aggression and the fierce struggles of barbarous times; they were\na necessary stage of growth and were at that stage Right, and in the\ndivine plan. But now those days are over, strength has been won; the\ntime has come when the separated selves must gradually draw together,\nand to co-operate with the divine Will which is working for union is\nthe Right. The Right which is the outcome of Love, directed by reason,\nat the present stage of evolution, then, seeks an ever-increasing\nrealisation of Unity, a drawing together of the separated selves. That\nwhich by establishing harmonious relations makes for Unity is Right;\nthat which divides and disintegrates, which makes for separation, is\nWrong.\" (_ibid._, 10, 11.)\n\nHin[d.][=u]ism, on which the whole of this is based, has added to this\nbroad criterion the division of a life into four stages, to each of\nwhich appropriate virtues are assigned: the Student Period, with its\nvirtues of perfect continence, industry, frugality, exertion; the\nHousehold Period, with its virtue of duties appropriate to the position,\nthe earning and enjoying of wealth, the gratification of desires; the\nRetirement Period, with the virtues of the renouncing of worldly\ngain and of sacrifice; the Ascetic Period, of complete renunciation,\nmeditation and preparation for post-mortem life. These indications\nmake more easy the decisions as to Right and Wrong.\n\nThe more we think upon and work out into detail this view of Morality as\nbased on Evolution, the more we realise its soundness, and the more we\nfind that the moral law is as discoverable by observation, by reason,\nand by experiment, as any other law of Nature. If a man disregards it,\neither ignorantly or wilfully, he suffers. A man may disregard physical\nhygienic and sanitary laws because of his ignorance; none the less will\nhe suffer from physical disease. A man may disregard moral laws because\nof ignorance; none the less will he suffer from moral disease. The sign\nof disease in both cases is pain and unhappiness; experts in both cases\nwarn us, and if we disregard the warning, we learn its truth later by\nexperience. There is no hurry; but the law is sure. Working with the\nlaw, man evolves swiftly with happiness; working against it, he evolves\nslowly with pain. In either case, he evolves, advancing joyously as a\nfree man, or scourged onwards as a slave. The most obstinate fool in\nlife's class, refusing to learn, fortunately dies and cannot quite\nescape after death the knowledge of his folly.\n\nLet the reader try for himself the solution of moral problems,\naccepting, as a hypothesis, the facts of evolution and of the two halves\nof its huge spiral, and see for himself if this view does not offer a\nrational, intelligible, practical meaning to the much-vexed words, Right\nand Wrong. Let him see how it embraces all that is true in the other\nbases suggested, is their summation, and rationalises their precepts.\nHe will find that Morality is no longer dependent on the maxims of great\nTeachers--though indeed they proclaimed its changeless laws--nor on the\nimperfect resultant of individual experiences, nor on the happiness of\nsome only of the great human family, but that it inheres in the very\nnature of things, an essential law of happy life and ordered progress.\nThen indeed is Morality founded on a basis that cannot be moved; then\nindeed can it speak with an imperial authority the \"ought\" that must\nbe obeyed; then it unfolds its beauty as humanity evolves to its\nperfecting, and leads to Bliss Eternal, the Brahman Bliss, where the\nhuman will, in fullest freedom, accords itself in harmony with the\ndivine.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nMYSTICISM\n\n\nMysticism cannot be spoken of as a basis of morality in the sense in\nwhich Revelation, Intuition, Utility and Evolution are bases, for it is\nvalid only for the individual, not for everybody, for the true Mystic,\nthe dictates of the Outer or Inner God are imperial, compelling, but to\nany one else they are entirely unauthoritative. None the less, as the\ninfluence of the Mystic is wide-reaching, and his dicta are accepted by\nmany as a trustworthy revelation--are not all revelations communicated\nby Mystics?--or as the intuition of an illuminated conscience, or as\nshowing the highest utility, or as the result of an evolution higher\nthan the normal, it is worth while to consider their value.\n\nMysticism is the realisation of God, of the Universal Self. It is\nattained either as a realisation of God outside the Mystic, or within\nhimself. In the first case, it is usually reached from within a\nreligion, by exceptionally intense love and devotion, accompanied by\npurity of life, for only \"the pure in heart shall see God\". The external\nmeans are prayer to and meditation on the Object of devotion--Shr[=i]\nR[=a]ma, Shr[=i] K[r.][s.]h[n.]a, the Lord Jesus--long continued and\npersevering, and the devotee realises his Divinity by ecstacy attaining\nUnion thereby. Such Mystics are, for the most part, valuable to the\nworld as creating an atmosphere of spirituality, which raises the\ngeneral level of religious feeling in those who come within its area;\nIndia has especially profited by the considerable number of such Mystics\nfound within its borders in past times, and to a lesser extent to-day;\nevery one who practises, for instance, meditation, knows that it is\neasier here than elsewhere, and all sensitive persons feel the Indian\n\"atmosphere\". Outside this, such Mystics occasionally write valuable\nbooks, containing high ideals of the spiritual life. As a rule, they do\nnot concern themselves with the affairs of the outer world, which they\nregard as unimportant. Their cry continually is that the world is evil,\nand they call on men to leave it, not to improve it. To them God and the\nworld are in opposition, \"the world, the flesh, and the devil\" are the\nthree great enemies of the spiritual life. In the West, this is almost\nuniversal, for in the Roman Catholic Church seclusion is the mark of\nthe religious life, and \"the religious\" are the monk and the nun, the\n\"religious\" and the \"secular\" being in opposition. In truth, where the\nrealisation of God outside himself is sought by the devotee, seclusion\nis a necessity for success, if only for the time which is required for\nmeditation, the essential preliminary of ecstacy. In the very rare\nMystics of non-Catholic communions, full ecstacy is scarcely, if at all,\nknown or even recognised; an overpowering sense of the divine Presence\nis experienced, but it is a Presence outside the worshipper; it is\naccompanied with a deliberate surrender of the will to God, and a\nfeeling on the part of the man that he becomes an instrument of the\ndivine Will; this he carries with him into outer life, and, undirected\nby love and the illuminated reason, it often lands the half-developed\nMystic into fanaticism and cruelty; no one who has read Oliver\nCromwell's letters can deny that he was a Mystic, half-developed, and it\nis on him that Lord Rosebery founded his dictum of the formidable nature\nof the \"practical Mystic\"; the ever present sense of a divine Power\nbehind himself gives such a man a power that ordinary men cannot\nsuccessfully oppose; but this sense affords no moral basis, as, witness\nthe massacre of Drogheda. Such a Mystic, belonging to a particular\nreligion, as he always does, takes the revelation of his religion as his\nmoral code, and Cromwell felt himself as the avenging sword of his God,\nas did the Hebrews fighting with the Amalekites. No man who accepts a\nrevelation as his guide can be regarded as more than partially a Mystic.\nHe has the Mystic temperament only, and that undoubtedly gives him\na strength far beyond the strength of those who have it not.\n\nThe true Mystic, realising God, has no need of any Scriptures, for he\nhas touched the source whence all Scriptures flow. An \"enlightened\"\nBr[=a]hma[n.]a, says Shr[=i] K[r.][s.]h[n.]a, has no more need of the\nVe[d.]as, than a man needs a tank in a place which is overflowing with\nwater. The value of cisterns, of reservoirs, is past, when a man is\nseated beside an ever-flowing spring. As Dean Inge has pointed out,\nMysticism is the most scientific form of religion, for it bases itself,\nas does all science, on experience and experiment--experiment being only\na specialised form of experience, devised either to discover or to\nverify.\n\nWe have seen the Mystic who realises God outside himself and seeks\nUnion with Him. There remains the most interesting, the most effective\nform of Mysticism, the realisation by a man of God within himself. Here\nmeditation is also a necessity, and the man who is born with a high\ncapacity for concentration is merely a man who has practised it in\nprevious lives. A life or lives of study and seclusion often precede\na life of tremendous and sustained activity in the physical world. The\nrealisation is preceded by control of the body, control of the emotions\nand control of the mind, for the power to hold these in complete\nstillness is necessary, if a man is to penetrate into those depths of\nhis own nature in which alone is to be found the shrine of the inner\nGod. The subtle music of that sphere is drowned by the clatter of the\nlower bodies as the most exquisite notes of the V[=i][n.][=a] are lost\nin the crude harsh sound of the harmonium. The Voice of the Silence can\nonly be heard in the silence, and all the desires of the heart must be\nparalysed ere can arise in the tranquillity of senses and mind, the\nglorious majesty of the Self. Only in the desert of loneliness rises\nthat Sun in all His glory, for all objects that might cloud His dawning\nmust vanish; only \"when half-Gods go,\" does God arise. Even the outer\nGod must hide, ere the Inner God can manifest; the cry of agony of the\nCrucified must be wrung from the tortured lips; \"My God, my God, why\nhast _Thou_ forsaken me?\" precedes the realisation of the God\nwithin.\n\nThrough this all Mystics pass who are needed for great service in the\nworld, those whom Mr. Bagshot so acutely calls \"materialised Mystics\".\nThe Mystics who find God outside themselves are the \"unmaterialised\"\nMystics, and they serve the world in the ways above mentioned; but the\nother, as Mr. Bagshot points out, transmute their mystic thought into\n\"practical energy,\" and these become the most formidable powers known in\nthe physical world. All that is based on injustice, fraud and wrong may\nwell tremble when one of these arises, for the Hidden God has become\nmanifest, and who may bar His way?\n\nSuch Mystics wear none of the outer signs of the \"religious\"--their\nrenunciation is within, not without, there is no parade of outer\nholiness, no outer separation from the world; Janaka the King,\nK[r.][s.]h[n.]a the Warrior-Statesman, are of these; clothed in cotton\ncloth or cloth of gold, it matters not; poor or rich, it boots not;\nfailing or succeeding, it is naught, for each apparent failure is the\nroad to fuller success, and both are their servants, not their masters;\nvictory ever attends them, to-day or a century hence is equal, for\nthey live in Eternity, and with them it is ever To-day. Possessing\nnothing, all is theirs; holding everything, nothing belongs to them.\nMisconception, misrepresentation, they meet with a smile, half-amused,\nall-forgiving; the frowns, the taunts, the slanders of the men they live\nto serve are only the proofs of how much these foolish ones need their\nhelp, and how should these foolish ones hurt those on whom the Peace of\nthe Eternal abides?\n\nThese Mystics are a law unto themselves, for the inner law has replaced\nthe external compulsion. More rigid, for it is the law of their own\nnature; more compelling, for it is the Voice of the divine Will; more\nexacting, for no pity, no pardon, is known to it; more all-embracing,\nfor it sees the part only in the whole.\n\nBut it has, it ought to have, no authority outside the Mystic himself.\nIt may persuade, it may win, it may inspire, but it may not claim\nobedience as of right. For the Voice of the God within only becomes\nauthoritative for another when the God within that other self answers\nthe Mystic's appeal, and he recognises an ideal that he could not have\nformulated, unaided, for himself. The Mystic may shine as a Light, but\na man must see with his own eyes, and there lies the world's safety;\nthe materialised Mystic, strong as he is, cannot, by virtue of the God\nwithin him, enslave his fellow-men.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHE VASANTA PRESS, ADYAR, MADRAS","title":"The Basis of Morality","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":9165}