{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_74315/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_74315","id":"gutenberg_74315","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/74315","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Ethics"],"text":"THRASYMACHUS\n\n\n\n\n                             THRASYMACHUS\n\n                                  OR\n\n                         The Future of Morals\n\n\n                                  BY\n                             C. E. M. JOAD\n\n\n                            [Illustration]\n\n\n                               New York\n                        E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY\n                           681 Fifth Avenue\n\n\n\n\n                            Copyright 1926\n                       BY E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY\n\n\n                         _All Rights Reserved_\n\n                _First Printing_      _December, 1925_\n                _Second Printing_        _March, 1926_\n\n\n               _Printed in the United States of America_\n\n\n\n\n                           CONTENTS\n\n\n CHAPTER                                                 PAGE\n\n      I. MORALITY AS THE INTEREST OF THE STRONGER           1\n\n     II. HERD MORALITY AND THE NEW TYRANNY OF THOUGHT      13\n\n    III. THE NEW LIBERTY OF ACTION                         37\n\n     IV. THE COMING CLASH                                  57\n\n\n\n\n                             THRASYMACHUS\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n               MORALITY AS THE INTEREST OF THE STRONGER\n\n\nThrasymachus appears in the first book of Plato\u2019s _Republic_, in\nwhich the speakers discuss the nature of Justice. Several tentative\ndefinitions of Justice are given, which Socrates has no difficulty\nin showing to be inadequate by the peculiarly irritating methods\nof dialectic for which the Athenians so excusably poisoned him.\nThrasymachus then breaks in. He is a blustering, overbearing personage,\nwho makes long speeches instead of answering Socrates\u2019 questions, and,\nwhen driven into a corner, charges the latter rather irrelevantly with\nhaving a bad cold and omitting to use his handkerchief.\n\nRequired to sustain an unpopular thesis, he is not unnaturally\nrepresented as an offensive person. The trick is an old one and argues\nwell for Plato\u2019s sense of dramatic fitness. It should not, however,\nblind us to the plausibility of Thrasymachus\u2019 position. Justice, he\nsays, is the interest of the stronger. Asked how he maintains this\nview, he points out that the stronger control the government and make\nthe laws. These laws are not unnaturally made in their own interest;\nin other words, matters are so contrived that, by the mere process of\nobeying the laws, citizens are led to further the interests of those\nwho govern them. Morality, which is the name we give to law-abiding\nconduct, is, therefore, a device on the part of the rulers to ensure\nsubservience and contentment on the part of their subjects. Since\nsubservient subjects are a joy and a credit to intelligent rulers, we\nmay say that justice, and indeed morality in general, is the interest\nof the stronger.\n\nThe view that morality is unnatural to human beings and is imposed\nby law in the teeth of primitive instincts which are fundamentally\nnon-moral, recurs at pretty regular intervals throughout the recorded\nhistory of what passes for human thought. It rests upon what is called\nthe social contract theory of society, and leads to the conclusion that\nhuman nature is fundamentally wicked.\n\nThe life of man in a state of nature was, as the philosopher Hobbes\ntells us, \u201csolitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.\u201d His hand was\nagainst his fellows and every man\u2019s hand was against him. Men acted\noffensively[1] towards each other as and when they pleased, and were\nrestrained by nothing but fear for their own safety. Finding this state\nof affairs intolerable, men agreed to renounce their natural right to\nact offensively towards their fellows on condition that their fellows\nmade a similar concession as regards themselves. The best thing of all,\nof course, was to do what you liked to others without their having the\nright to retaliate. Since this seemed impracticable, the next best\nthing was to renounce the full liberty to do what one liked, seeing\nthat it was attended by the obviously unpleasant consequence to oneself\nof a similar liberty in others, and to venture only upon those actions\nthat the law allowed. Society then was a _pis aller_. Your neighbour,\nit was true, could not harm you, but then no longer could you work\nyour own sweet will upon your neighbour. Men lived at peace with one\nanother, not because they were naturally peaceable and law abiding, but\nbecause they feared the consequences of being found out if they were\nnot. Once that fear of consequences was removed, they would revert to\ntheir primitive, natural wickedness. Let a man, for example, learn how\nto become invisible at will and, as Plato points out, no virgin would\nbe safe, no strong box unrifled. Man, then, is made moral by law; he is\nnot moral by nature.\n\n  [1] The term \u2018acting offensively\u2019 in this connection is used to cover\n      primitive conduct of the kind which is supposed to attract wicked\n      and violent men, as, for example, carrying off your neighbour\u2019s\n      wife, raping his daughter, stealing his spoons, bashing in or\n      otherwise mutilating his face, and so forth.\n\nNow the man who makes the laws is in one sense like the man who has\nlearnt how to become invisible. I do not mean that he can break the\nlaws with impunity, but he can see to it that he has no incentive to\nbreak them. Thus we have the majestic impartiality of the modern law\nwhich forbids rich and poor alike to sleep in doorways. He can also, as\nThrasymachus points out, ensure that, so long as others keep them, his\nown power will be automatically safeguarded. And, since the law is at\nonce the prop and the mirror of the public opinion of the community,\nand, since the public opinion of the community is in matters of conduct\nat once the guardian and the arbiter of conventional morality, we may\nfurther say that the habit of acting in a way of which the public\nopinion of the community approves will be found to conduce to the\nmaintenance of the _status quo_, and hence to the interests of those\nwhom the _status quo_ suits.\n\nIn the early eighteenth century Bernard Mandeville revived and\nelaborated the doctrine of Thrasymachus. Society was devised by\nskilful politicians for their own advantage. This they hoped chiefly\nto secure by the spread of what was called morality. Addressing\nthemselves, therefore, to men\u2019s pride, they pointed out that man had\nalways considered himself to be superior to the brute beasts. Yet, if\nhe indulged his passions as soon as he conceived them and gave way\nalike to sensual desire and violent rage, wherein did his superiority\nconsist? Surely in order to demonstrate their superiority men must\nlearn to master their appetites and restrain their passions. The plain\nman listened to the words of the flatterer, and, aspiring to live\nthe higher life, transformed himself from a savage into a clerk. The\nprocess is known as civilization.\n\nTamed by his own conceit, man was now fit to live in society. As a\nsocial animal he regards as virtuous every action on the part of others\nby which the society to which he belongs is benefited, and stigmatizes\nas vicious the indulgence of private appetites irrespective of the\npublic good.\n\nBut the skilful politicians who had planned the thing from the\nbeginning had taken good care to ensure that the good of society\nshould be identical with their own advantage. Uncivilized man is\nungovernable man, but man tamed and tractable, with the bees of social\nvirtue and social service buzzing in his citizen\u2019s bonnet, is at once\nthe prop and the dupe of unscrupulous governments. \u201cFrom which\u201d, as\nMandeville says, \u201cit is evident that the first rudiments of morality\nbroached by skilful politicians to make men useful to each other as\nwell as tractable, were chiefly contrived that the ambitious might reap\nthe more benefit from, and govern vast numbers of them with the greater\nease and security.\u201d\n\nTo those who object that morality was invented by God and not by\npoliticians, and that the sanctions of right conduct are derived not\nfrom social utility but from divine ordinance, it should be observed\nthat God himself is the most potent instrument yet devised for securing\nthe performance of conduct beneficial to the stronger. This at least\nis true of the great bulk of the gods who have figured in history.\nOn this point perhaps it would be best to let the stronger speak for\nthemselves. Napoleon may be taken as a suitable representative.\n\n\u201cWhat is it,\u201d he writes, \u201cthat makes the poor man think it quite\nnatural that there are fires in my parlour while he is dying of cold?\nThat I have ten coats in my wardrobe while he goes naked? That at\neach of my meals enough is served to feed his family for a week? It is\nsimply religion which tells him that in another life I shall be only\nhis equal, and that he actually has more chances of being happy there\nthan I. Yes, we must see to it that the floors of the churches are open\nto all, and that it does not cost the poor man much to have prayers\nsaid on his tomb.\u201d Thenceforward, though an avowed free thinker,\nNapoleon set his face sternly against anti-Christian and anti-clerical\nlegislation.\n\nThe moral is sufficiently obvious. Men whose lives are miserable\nand oppressed will either rise in revolt against their misery and\nservitude, or console themselves with the prospect of generous\ncompensation hereafter. If steps are taken to ensure that their faith\nis sufficiently lively, they will look to the next world to supply\nthem with the divine equivalents of the champagne and cigars they are\nmissing in this one, an expectation which confers obvious advantages\nupon those whom it enables to monopolize the champagne and cigars.\nTack on the further belief that riches and power in this world are the\nbest guarantees of torment and anguish in the next, and the utility\nof religion to \u201cthe stronger\u201d is sufficiently manifest. The parable\nof the needle\u2019s eye and the story of Lazarus have been responsible\nfor a political and social quietism among the many, which do credit to\nthe political acumen of the early governing class realists who slipped\nthem into the text of the New Testament; and whenever that quietism has\nshowed signs of giving, way, a religious revival or the endowment of a\nchurch has usually been found the most effective method of dealing with\nthe situation.\n\n\u201cIn 1818 one Englishman out of seven being at that time a pauper,\nParliament voted a million of public money for the construction of\nchurches to preach submission to the higher powers. In the debates in\nthe House of Lords, Lord Liverpool took occasion to lay stress on the\nsocial importance of guiding by this means the opinions of the masses\nwho were for the first time beginning to receive education.\u201d[2] God, it\nseems, is cheaper than a living wage, and no less effective as a means\nof securing social contentment.\n\n  [2] _The Town Labourer_, by J. L. and Barbara Hammond.\n\nTo its superior utility in this respect we must in part attribute the\nsuccess of Christianity. Of all religions known to man it lays the\ngreatest stress upon those virtues whose practice is advantageous to\nthe stronger. It glorifies weakness and sentimentalizes over failure;\nits heaven is for the submissive and the inefficient; its hell for\nthe dominant and the proud. Just as the charitable worker takes the\nrevolutionary edge off poverty by distributing coal and blankets to\nthe victims of acute industrial distress, so the priest promotes\nsubmissiveness by inculcating the duties of sobriety, meekness,\nunselfishness, honesty, and contentment. These virtues make good\nworkmen and prosperous employers, and, if they are only developed\nto a sufficient degree, will enable their fortunate possessors\ncheerfully to put up with bad wages, long hours, wretched houses, and\nsocial servitude. The contrary virtues of manliness, self-reliance\nand independence springing from a spirit passionately resentful of\ninjustice, quick to resist an injury and idealistically determined to\nmake a better place of this world instead of waiting passively for the\nnext one, are discouraged as savouring of pride and self-sufficiency,\nand as showing a reprehensible tendency to look for help to oneself\ninstead of to God, our helper in time of trouble. The rich, to be sure,\npossess these virtues; but then the message of religion is _from_, not\n_to_, the rich.\n\nBut Thrasymachus has yet one more observation to make to us before\nwe leave him to turn to the future. The penalty of law breaking on a\nsmall scale is prison, and of trivial wickedness, social ostracism.\nBut what of law-breaking on a large scale, and a wickedness powerful\nenough to flout the public opinion to which others succumb? These are\nthe qualities of the stronger and they reap the stronger\u2019s reward. The\nrebel is the patriot who fails, the patriot is the rebel who prevails.\nThis is the lesson of the past, and those who read it may learn that\nif only they are strong enough to succeed, they need not trouble\nthemselves about the respectability of their credentials. Nor has the\nposition altered to-day. The man who steals a leg of mutton goes to\nprison for a month; the captain of industry grown rich on the profits\nstolen from his workmen gets a knighthood. The man who has murdered\nthe wife who has annoyed him gets hanged for his pains; the man who\nkills his fellow men for nourishment is denounced as a cannibal; but\nthe great general who plans the death of vast multitudes of his fellows\nwhom he has never seen, with whom he has never exchanged a cross word\nand whom he does not require for purposes of sustenance, is hailed as\nthe saviour of his country.\n\nThus those who commit injustice, yet have the wit or the good fortune\nto escape the consequences of their actions, climb into the seats of\nthe stronger and share their immunity from moral restrictions. Since,\nin the mere process of gratifying their tastes, they are enabled to\ngive employment to large bodies of their fellows, they are accounted\npublic benefactors whose wealth constitutes a social asset. And,\nshould vestiges of the morality of the weaker, from whose ranks they\nhave risen, assail them in the form of conscience, they discover that\neven the gods can be squared and that a liberal support of deserving\ncharities, coupled with the occasional endowment of a church, are\ncalculated\u2015\u2015so they are assured\u2015\u2015to procure for them as honoured a\nplace in the hereafter as their own successful injustice has obtained\nfor them in the present.\n\nThus Thrasymachus\u2019 phrase \u201cmorality is the interest of the stronger\u201d\nhas a double significance. In the first place, it defines the morality\nof the many as that kind of conduct which promotes the interest of the\nfew; in the second, it assures to the successful few the honourable\nreputation, the social consideration and the good repute among their\nfellows, which are commonly supposed to be the rewards of morality.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II\n\n             HERD MORALITY AND THE NEW TYRANNY OF THOUGHT\n\n\nThe statement of general principles in the preceding chapter was\nnot undertaken solely for the pleasure of political and ethical\nspeculation. My concern is a more practical one. If the principle that\njustice is the interest of the stronger is the explanation of what\npasses for morality, what, I wish to ask, is its application in the\npresent and what is it likely to be in the immediate future?\n\nIn order to answer these questions we must first consider a further\none: Who in a modern community is the stronger?\n\nThe fact that we are a democracy has not escaped notice. In our own day\nit is not kings, nobles, soldiers, prelates, politicians, or elected\npersons who are the stronger, but the common man, the plain man, the\naverage man, the man in the street, whether city man or working man,\nand the crowd or herd of such men. He, or rather his female counterpart\nsince she is more numerous even than he is, is the arbiter of morality,\nand the kind of conduct which is called moral is that which is\nconvenient or pleasing to her.\n\nPlato with his usual acumen foresaw the possibility of this development,\nand was careful to provide for it within the bounds of Thrasymachus\u2019\nformula. All that it is necessary to do if we wish to apply the formula\nto a democracy is to invert it; for \u2018stronger\u2019 read \u2018weaker\u2019, and the\nformula remains unaltered. The practicability of this inversion is\ndemonstrated by one Callicles, in the Dialogue called _Gorgias_.\nMost men are stupid, irresolute, apathetic, mediocre, timid, and\nunimaginative. The qualities implied by these epithets, though\ndiscernible at all times, force themselves most pressingly upon the\nattention when men act together. Take a sheep and stand it on its hind\nlegs and its resemblance to a human being is scarcely noticeable; but\nstand a flock of sheep on their hind legs and, so far as psychology and\nbehaviour go, you have a crowd of men. In other words, taken severally\nmen may be individuals; taken together they are a mere transmitting\nmedium for herd emotion. Their individual stupidities are added\ntogether, but their individual wisdoms cancel out.\n\nIn a democracy, says Callicles, the common men are the more numerous,\nthey also possess the power; acting, therefore, in accordance with\ntheir natures, they make the laws which their natures demand. Now it is\nnatural for every man to wish to obtain as much as he can. It is also\ninevitable that in a state of nature the stronger should obtain more\nthan the weaker. Hence the weaker, acting in self-defence, so frame\nthe laws that the endeavour of one individual to obtain more than the\nmany is stigmatized as unjust. Hence justice, or morality, which is now\nrevealed as the interest of the individually weaker but collectively\nstronger, may be regarded as their device for depriving the stronger of\nthe preponderance of good things, which the strongers\u2019 superior talents\nwould naturally procure for them.\n\nWhat we may call herd morality is, therefore, a form of self-defence\ndictated partly by fear, and partly by envy. The source of the fear is\nobvious; the envy springs from the natural spite of inferior persons\nwho are conscious of their inferiority, resent it, and wish to take\nit out of those who make them feel it. \u201cI have not,\u201d says the average\nman, \u201cthe capacity of the strong man for acquiring a large share of\nthe good things of life. Therefore I will take advantage of my numbers\nto lay it down that such acquisition is wrong and unjust.\u201d The common\nview of self-denial may be taken as an illustration. The average man\nhas neither the courage nor the strength to satisfy his desires and\nindulge his passions. Being unaccustomed to moderation he thinks that\nif he permits himself any indulgence he will be unable to stop. He dare\nnot bend for fear he break. Hence for the Greek virtue of temperance\nwe get the modern praise of self-denial, with a resultant standard of\nmorality which denounces all bodily indulgence as wrong. Upon the basis\nof this standard of morality the principle of sour grapes proceeds to\noperate on a large scale. The man who is not rash enough to take sexual\npleasure when he finds it, the woman who is not attractive enough to\nhave the opportunity of being rash, combine to denounce the delights at\nwhich the independent and the charming are not afraid to grasp.\n\nHerd morality, which is based on fear and envy, is made effective by\nblame. In modern society the power to blame is chiefly expressed in two\nways. First, by the old whose morality consists in blaming the young;\nsecondly, by the average whose censure descends upon the exceptional.\n\nUpon the part played by the old in maintaining morality I do not wish\nto dwell, since it differs little to-day from what it has always been.\nA mistake which all societies have made is to entrust the management\nof their affairs to the old. Old men are naturally more vindictive,\nbad tempered, malevolent, and narrow-minded than young ones. They are\neasily provoked to disapproval, and dislike more things than they like.\nHaving for the most part lived their own lives, they have nothing\nleft to do but to interfere in the lives of others. They form the\ngovernments, misrepresent the people whom they oppress, preach to the\npeople whom they exploit, and teach the people whom they deceive. They\nmete out rewards and punishments, sentence criminals to death, direct\nbusinesses, make laws which they have no temptation to disobey and wars\nin which they do not propose to fight. If the country were handed over\nexclusively to the governance of men under thirty-five, and everybody\nover that age were forbidden to interfere on pain of being sent to the\nlethal chamber, it would be a happier and a better place. Unfortunately\nthe young men are too busy trying to make a living in the subordinate\npositions to which the old men grudgingly admit them to have the time\nor energy to interfere with other people. Besides, being young, they\nwish to live, a process for which the regulation of the lives of others\nis a poor substitute.\n\nIn the sphere of morality the function of the old is confined to\ndiscovering methods of deterring the young from pleasures of which they\nthemselves are no longer capable. Old men give young men good advice,\nno longer being able to give them bad examples, and old women invent\na symbolic Mrs. Grundy to intimidate their daughters into resisting\nthe temptations which now pass them by. The deterrent influences so\nexercised are called morality under which name they impose on the young\nwho will not have caught their elders lying often enough to disbelieve\nthem, until they have begun to produce sons and daughters of their\nown, by which time they will be only too ready to abet the prevailing\nhypocrisy.\n\nThe other strand in the fabric of modern morality has already been\nnoticed as the tendency of the weaker to get even with the stronger\nby taking it out of him on moral grounds. Morals, it is thought,\nare everybody\u2019s privilege and everybody\u2019s possession. Few of us can\nunderstand Einstein\u2019s theory of relativity, but we all know the\ndifference between right and wrong. Hence the man who is deficient in\ntalent can make up for it in virtue, and by assuring himself that God\u2019s\nnoblest work is an honest man, put brains and capacity in their proper\nplace.\n\nSince the motives which have prompted its invention persist unchanged,\nmorality, which has always been the special emanation of the herd,\nvaries little in spite of superficial differences from age to age,\nwhilst intellectuality throws off new lights in every age. There is\nprobably very little difference between the crowds of ancient Babylon\nand modern Clapham, but the mind of Einstein differs in radical\nparticulars from that of Archimedes.\n\nRealizing that any fool can be good intellectuals have always made\nlight of morality for the same reasons as those which have caused the\nherd to set store by it. If the herd has been ready to censure the\neccentrics, the eccentrics have been even readier to provide materials\nfor censure. Despising the mob, they flout their standards and laugh\nat their scruples. The good are so harsh to the clever, the clever\nso rude to the good, that one might almost be tempted to believe in\na fundamental antipathy between virtue and brains. Whether this be\nso or not, it seems probable that there is a permanent necessity in\nour natures requiring us to exalt the common qualities we share and\nunderstand, and to condemn rare gifts. Thus morality represents the\naverage man\u2019s attempt to console himself in the face of the insulting\nsuperiority of the few, by proving that the superiority is achieved\nonly at the cost of loss of virtue. Certainly we must take it out of\nthese fellows somehow! It tortures our self-respect to admire those who\nhave qualities we cannot possess. That is why we love to think of the\nphilosopher as an absent-minded fool, incapable of feeding himself,\nwriting cheques or catching trains, and listen so greedily to the\nlegends of vice and voluptuousness in men of genius.\n\nWickedness in high places is so much more appetizing than wickedness\nin low; it enables us to prove that those who are inconsiderate enough\nto rise above us in place and power, only do so at the cost of falling\nbelow us in simplicity and virtue. The public lips have recently been\nsmacking over the details of a case in which it was alleged that a wife\nendeavoured to advance the career of her husband by a liaison with the\nQuarter Master General of H.M. Forces. It was further alleged that the\nhusband condoned and even encouraged her conduct. The Quarter Master\nGeneral was a man of marked ability. His organizing and administrative\ncapacity were justly famous; he was, in fact, one of the few brilliant\nsuccesses of the War. When the rumour spread that this man, one of\nthe most powerful as well as the ablest in the land, had been willing\nto advance a subordinate because he desired his wife, the outburst of\npublic indignation in the press was tremendous. Wickedness in high\nplaces was a glorious theme: there had been nothing like it since the\nArmistice. Labour bodies met to insist on the superior purity of the\nlives of working-people, and parsons thundered in their pulpits against\nthe luxury of the rich. For several weeks the Dennistoun case was the\nchief subject of conversation in trains, \u2019buses, and bar-parlours, and\nthose whose lips smacked the most greedily over the luscious scandal\nwere the most severe in their condemnation of the vices of society.\n\nWhy was it that this case attracted so much attention? Why was the\nwickedness involved considered so shocking? Why did those who would\nnot have looked twice at the six-line paragraph describing a similar\noccurrence in the remoter suburbs, follow every detail of the case with\nthe most avid curiosity? Because the woman was unusually beautiful, the\nman unusually powerful and talented. The beauty of the woman aroused\nthe envy of other women; the power and talents of the man excited the\nenvy of other men.\n\nWe all of us have an impulse to blame those whom life has more\ngenerously gifted or more fortunately bestowed than ourselves. We make\na virtue of our deficiencies, argue that only the dull and lowly are\ngood, and call the feeling of envy which we experience for those who\nare neither dull nor lowly moral indignation.\n\nIn addition to the envy of the old for the young and of the herd for\nthe exceptional, the impulse to blame, which men call morality, owns\nanother source. This is the desire for uniformity. The desire for\nuniformity springs in its turn from the fear of insecurity. Society,\nsaid Schopenhauer, is like a collection of hedgehogs driven together\nfor the sake of warmth. The object of social observances is to put felt\nupon the spikes in order that the proximity of the hedgehogs may not\ncause them to injure one another. The risk of friction will be reduced\nto a minimum if all the hedgehogs behave in the same way. Identical\nbehaviour in all circumstances is, no doubt, an unattainable ideal; but\nthis makes it doubly important that the herd as a whole should know\nwithin limits in what way each of its members _will_ behave. Those who\nreact unexpectedly to familiar situations, or differ markedly in their\nconduct from others are a danger to the herd, causing social friction\nand a sense of insecurity. For this reason reformers like Christ or\nIbsen, who violently question the standards of thought and conduct\nprevalent in their herd, and refuse to conform to them, are regarded\nwith bitter hostility.\n\nThe method by which the herd secures the uniformity of conduct upon\nwhich its comfort and security depend is the exercise of social\napproval and disapproval. In extreme cases this method is forcibly\nemployed. The soldier who shows a tendency to run away under the\nenemy\u2019s fire endangers the safety of his fellows. Steps are accordingly\ntaken to check this tendency by the pressure of social disapproval in\nthe form of discipline. Discipline is a device for substituting the\ncertainty of being shot for those who do not go over the top for the\nprobability of being shot for those who do. The result is that most\nsoldiers go over the top. This is conduct conducive to the safety\nof the herd, and is rewarded with social approval under the name of\ncourage.\n\nMore usually social approval and disapproval find expression in the\nsphere of manners and modes. In Japan under the old laws the term for\na rude man is \u201cother-than-expected fellow\u201d, and a noble is not to\nbe interfered with in cutting down a fellow who has behaved to him\nin a manner other than is expected. In general, thought or conduct\ncalculated to surprise or disturb the herd incurs disapproval and is\ncalled immoral; thought and conduct which mirrors the beliefs and\nhabits of the herd is regarded with approval and is called moral.\nThus virtue is the habit of acting in a manner of which other people\napprove; vice in a manner of which they disapprove.\n\nSumming up, therefore, we may say that social morality in a democracy\nsprings from the envy of the average man for the talents of the able\nman which cause him to feel inferior, and from the dislike of the herd\nfor the conduct of the eccentric which makes it feel unsafe.\n\nThese are general principles and are more or less applicable in any\nstate of society which is not a tyranny or a close oligarchy. What I\nwish to emphasize is their special application to a modern western\ndemocracy.\n\nIn a community of this type the herd is at once more congested and\nmore powerful than it has been in any other period of history. Its\ncongestion causes it to place a hitherto unparalleled emphasis upon\nthe necessity for felting the spikes of the hedgehogs, that is to\nsay, upon the importance of uniformity; its power enables it to vent\nits disapproval upon those who offend its prejudices with the maximum\neffect. This can be seen most clearly in the case of America which has\nproduced the most congested[3] and the most powerful herd on record.\nAmerica is a melting pot in which all the races of the earth are fused.\nThe natural diversity of its elements produces a special need for\nartificial uniformity in its citizens. A civilization with its roots in\nthe earth can allow its members to spread outwards, like the branches\nof a tree; a civilization, whose seeds are planted in shallow soil,\nmust hedge them about lest they be scattered by the wind. The first is\ncentrifugal: it can tolerate individuality because it has a centre. The\nsecond is centripetal: it must enforce uniformity because it has none.\n\n  [3] The word \u2018congested\u2019 is used to denote the oppression of spiritual\n      stuffiness rather than of physical overcrowding.\n\nFor this reason all American citizens strive to be exactly like each\nother, and, on the whole, they succeed. They have the same clothes,\nthey live in the same houses, they have the same social habits, the\nsame respect for money and the same suspicion of such superfluous\neccentricities as thought, culture, and art.\n\nA friend of mine, who had wintered in a Southern State, as the season\nadvanced discarded his felt hat for the regulation straw. A few weeks\nlater he had occasion to travel northwards to New York. As he left the\ntrain he noticed that he was an object of attention to people on the\nplatform. Porters and loungers stared, and as he walked away from the\nstation, he found himself followed by a small and apparently hostile\ncrowd. Hailing a taxi, he drove to his hotel. In the porch he met an\nacquaintance, told him of the notice he had attracted, and asked the\nreason. His friend explained the matter by pointing to his straw hat.\nIt was too early in New York for the change over into straws, he said,\nand of course one could not dress differently from other people.\n\nThe rigid enforcement of uniformity is hostile not only to freedom of\naction but also to independence of thought. The laws against teaching\nor holding doctrines displeasing to the majority are particularly\nsevere in America. Immigrants, for example, are not allowed to land in\nAmerica until they have first expressed their disbelief in Communism,\natheism, and free love. Many people are put in prison for holding\nunpopular views, although these views do no apparent harm to anybody.\nAdvocacy of birth-control, possession of irreverent and disreputable\nbooks such as _Jurgen_, expression of subversive opinions with regard\nto the relationship of capital and labour, and disbelief in God are\namong the offences so punished.\n\nNot only is it necessary not to profess unpopular views\u2015\u2015it is\nsometimes necessary to profess popular ones. In order to placate herd\nopinion it is found necessary to enforce by law the propagation\nof deliberate falsehood. This happens especially in those cases,\nunfortunately only too numerous, in which the truth is less gratifying\nto human conceit than we could wish, so that its adoption involves\nthe abandonment of cherished beliefs. Such, for instance, is the\nbelief that man is a degenerate angel, which is thought to be more\nflattering than the truth that he is a promoted ape. Thus the State\nof Tennessee has recently officially repudiated the \u201cmonkey ancestry\u201d\nof its citizens. A law has been passed under which it is illegal for\nany teacher in a university or other public school to teach anything\ndenying the story of creation given in the Bible, or that man has\ndescended from the lower order of animals, and men have already been\nimprisoned for teaching evolution. It is not, so far as I know,\nmaintained even in America that the doctrine of evolution is untrue.\nIt is sufficient that it incurs the disapproval of the stronger.\nThus truth herself is liable to be stigmatized as immoral if she is\ninconsiderate enough to flout the wishes of respectable citizens.\n\nWhere individuality is to a large extent obliterated, and citizens are\ncut according to approved specification by the social machine, nothing\nis so much valued as personality. I have said that every American\nwishes to be like every other American, and so he does\u2015\u2015but with a\ndifference. He wants to have a personality of his own. He wishes to\nhave a something about him that will convey an impression of uniqueness\nand cause him to be talked about among his fellows. Nothing is so much\ndiscussed in America as personality. Men try to cultivate it as they\ntry to cultivate biceps; agencies exist in order to tell you how to be\nunique, and psycho-analysts flourish by the simple process of telling\nyou that you are unique.\n\nBut this is just what the conditions upon which herd morality depends\nwill not let you be. Depart one hair\u2019s-breadth from the standard habits\nof thought and accepted codes of conduct, and the herd will make your\nexistence intolerable until you consent to toe the line.\n\nNow the drift of British development follows increasingly the course\nset by America. America is our most advanced nation in morals as in\neverything else, and, if we want to know what England will be like\nto-morrow, we cannot do better than look at America to-day. America is\nat once a signpost and a stimulus. What American business men are, that\ndo our business men strive humbly to be. They ape their magnificence,\nand enjoy a large and increasing share of this power. The stockbroker\u2019s\nconception of the good life is becoming increasingly accepted by the\nclerk, the clerk\u2019s by the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper\u2019s by the workman,\nso that the community as a whole is doing its best to live up to the\nstandard which its business men set. So soon as we have got rid of the\nlast vestiges of our dying aristocracy, such as respect for hunting and\na semi-feudal tenantry, we shall subside into an inferior and imitative\nsatellite of the States.\n\nThe objects of American civilization are to substitute cleanliness for\nbeauty, mechanism for men, and hypocrisy for morals. It devotes so\nmuch energy to obtaining the means to make life possible, that it has\nnone left to practise the art of living. Hot baths and more hot baths,\nlarger and ever larger hotels, faster and ever faster cars, golf played\nby ever fatter and more vulgar men, and lap-dogs kept by ever fatter\nand more vulgar women, cocktails and culture, psycho-analysis and faith\nhealing, sensual poetry and sensational sport, supported and maintained\nby an illiterate governing class ready to be imposed upon by any\nquack or charlatan who can persuade it to take an interest in what it\nimagines to be its soul, such is the probable development of bourgeois\ncivilization in England.\n\nHints of the growing adhesion of the herd to the ideals and pursuits\nof big business are not wanted in current developments of moral\nsentiment. As the profiteer supplants the aristocrat as the dominant\nforce in the community, a slight twist is given to the moral opinions\nof the herd as a whole in order that they may be brought into line with\nthe changed interests of the stronger. Moral sentiments suitable to the\ninterests of a hereditary aristocracy of landed proprietors insensibly\ngive place to a morality designed to protect and safeguard the pursuits\nof the fat man on holiday.\n\nAn example of this process is afforded by the changed attitude to\nhunting. A hundred years ago hunting was considered an entirely\nhonourable pursuit, appropriate to gentlemen and advantageous to the\ncountryside. To-day it is attacked on humanitarian grounds and voices\nare raised in favour of the fox. If he must be killed why not humanely?\nIt was recently reported that a fox chased by the Cowdray hounds jumped\nthrough the window of a private residence and up the chimney flue.\nEfforts were made to smoke him out by lighting a fire immediately\nbelow, for all the world as if he were a boy chimney brush of a century\nago instead of a fox, but they were unsuccessful. Ultimately workmen\nremoved some bricks and the fox was got out and given to the hounds.\nThis case caused an outcry on the ground that the fox, who had given\nthe hounds a good run, was the victim of cruel and unsporting conduct.\nA similar outburst was provoked by a hunted stag who recently took\nrefuge in the Channel, and was picked up and carried to France.\n\nThat hunting is now condemned by the moral sense of the community not\nbecause of any increase in humanitarian sentiment, but because of a\nchange in the interests of the predominant herd, is shown by the apathy\nof public opinion with regard to the victims of the gun and the motor.\nBusiness men unable to hunt because of the obesity produced by their\nhabits are not debarred from shooting. Moors are hired in Scotland\nand all creatures liable to interfere with the supply of game are\nruthlessly exterminated. Thus a squirrel-catching society has recently\nbeen formed in Aberdeenshire. Rewards are offered for each squirrel\ncaptured, and it is estimated that between two and three thousand\nsquirrels are killed a year. At Monte Carlo business-men sit on\nterraces and shoot down pigeons which have been previously imprisoned\nin darkened boxes, with the result that, when they are let out into\nthe sunlight, they are too dazed to fly away. Before they are placed\nin the boxes the tails of these birds are removed. This impedes their\nflight and makes things easier for the business-men, who kill between\nsixty and a hundred an hour. But it is not thought, except by cranks,\nthat the business-men are immoral for amusing themselves in this way,\nalthough it is illegal in England for boys to steal the eggs of many\nkinds of birds.\n\nIn the south of England, where the roads are tarred to facilitate the\npassage of motors and the approach of business-men is heralded over\nthe countryside by a stink of tar and petrol, it is reported that the\nemanations from the roads have poisoned the waters of the Test and\nItchen and caused the death of many of the living things that dwell in\nthem. Even the fish, it seems, have begun to feel the march of progress.\n\nMotors are frequently the cause of the death to hens, puppies, cats,\nand small children. Yet nobody thinks the business man\u2019s pursuit of\nmotoring immoral. On the contrary, it is assumed without question that\nthe road is his property, and that the pedestrian should make way for\nhim, while the risk to life and damage to limb consequent upon his\nrefusal to do so are regarded as the results of culpable folly and\nnegligence on the part not of the motorist but of himself.\n\nBusiness-men are given to amassing property, but not to making friends.\nIt is not in personal relationships that they seek the good life, but\nin a plenitude of goods. For this reason current herd morality visits\noffences against property with greater severity than offences against\nthe person. A man will get six months for stealing a diamond necklace,\nbut only six days for beating his wife. But, though the ill treatment\nof a wife by her husband is punished with comparative lightness,\nher appropriation by another man is considered to be the height of\nwickedness. This is because the man who makes love to his neighbour\u2019s\nwife is committing an offence against property. For the same reason the\ndesire on the part of a wife to secede from her existing possessor and\nto be an independent entity maintaining herself by her own exertions is\nregarded with disfavour.[4] It is as if a valuable house were to insist\nthat it should remain uninhabited.\n\n  [4] Cp. the success of A. S. M. Hutchinson\u2019s _This Freedom_.\n\nThose who belong to a herd are in general unable to understand the wish\nof others to escape from it. Such a wish is an implied criticism upon\nthe herd conception, and brings a sense of insecurity. Thus the desire\nfor leisure and solitude, or for a life amid wild surroundings, is\nregarded with instinctive disapproval. A Frenchman recently exploring\nin Brazil came upon a party of Indians one of whom had a paler skin\nthan the others. The pale skinned Indian turned out to be his long-lost\nbrother, who had lived among the Indians for a number of years. The\nexplorer immediately set to work to persuade his brother to return\nwith him to civilization. His efforts, however, proved unavailing.\nThe brother asked why he should return to a community in which he had\nto pay taxes, wear clothes and do other disagreeable things, when\nhe could live with the Indians in a state of nature without labour\nof any kind. The explorer had no answer to these questions. He was\nunable to understand this refusal to return to the herd and accept the\nrestrictions that existence in the herd involves. Accordingly he told\nhis brother that he was a hopeless degenerate, and left him to what he\ncharacteristically called his fate.\n\nSomething of the same feeling is entertained by the average man towards\nthe artist or the writer. He distrusts the contempt of herd standards\nwhich his irregular life implies. This sentiment is reinforced by a\nfeeling of insecurity in regard to possessions. The average man is too\nbusy to spare time for sexual immorality, and instinctively suspects\nthe life of the artist or writer because of the facilities which it\naccords for meddling with his wife during office hours. The general\nnature of the objection entertained by the herd to sexual immorality\nwill be examined more fully in the next chapter.\n\nBefore I close this chapter I wish to point out how the sentiments I\nhave endeavoured to describe have been intensified by the decay of\nreligion.\n\nCommunities in which the average man is the stronger have always been\nnoted for their Puritanism and high moral standard. Promiscuity has\nhistorically been practised by the aristocracy rather than by the\nmiddle classes, and in societies in which the standard is set by the\nlatter is visited accordingly with a disproportionate amount of moral\nobloquy. Severer steps would no doubt have been taken against it,\nhad it not been for the conviction that the sinner would be punished\nhereafter. The poor man, lacking the rich man\u2019s goods, has comforted\nhimself with the story of Lazarus. But the moral man has found equal\nconsolation when denying himself the pleasures of the flesh, in\npicturing the eternal torments which awaited those who refused to be\nbound by his inhibitions.\n\nThe average moralist has accordingly refrained from punishing the\nsuccessful libertine, knowing that God would do it for him. But this\nconviction is no longer held. God is a much more mysterious being than\nhe used to be, and we have less knowledge of his ways. It may be that\nhe does not exist at all, and in any event the belief that he will do\nthis or that, and, in particular, that he will entertain the same moral\nviews as we do ourselves, is no longer entertained with its old time\ncertainty. \u201cVengeance is mine, saith the Lord; I will repay.\u201d Perhaps\nit is, but it might be visited on the wrong people. In any event it is\nsafer to take no chances, and to make sure that sinners shall suffer\nin this world the punishment which the eccentricity of God\u2019s views may\npermit them to forego in the next. For this reason it is to be expected\nthat the herd morality of the future will develop a severer outlook\nupon derelictions from the standards of behaviour which it regards\nas moral. What these derelictions are, and what are the reasons for\nsupposing that in spite of this attitude they are likely to increase, I\nwill consider in the next chapter.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n                       THE NEW LIBERTY OF ACTION\n\n\nImportant forces are, however, at work in the contrary direction.\nIf the growing prevalence of herd morality will tend to place a new\nemphasis on the importance of uniformity, uniformity in the moral\nsphere is likely to prove more difficult of attainment.\n\nTwo factors in particular will militate against it. These are the\ngrowth of economic independence among women, and the practice of birth\ncontrol. Let us consider these factors separately.\n\nI. The basis of the institution of marriage is economic. Theological\nfactors have of course played their part. The early Christian fathers,\nexpecting the immediate end of the world, saw no reason to take steps\nto ensure the continuance of the race. The Christian hostility to the\npleasures of the senses was, therefore, allowed to rage unchecked, and\nsexual intercourse was denounced as both wicked and unnecessary. As\ntime passed, however, it was found that the world showed no signs of\ncoming to an end, an inconsiderateness which led to the necessity for\na change of attitude. The Church met the situation with a complete\n_volte face_. It had previously stigmatized the sexual passions as so\nwicked that no Christian should be permitted to indulge them: it now\npronounced them to be so sacred that no Christian should be permitted\nto indulge them without the sanction of the Church. The sanction of\nthe Church was given in marriage, a device whereby the Fathers sought\nto control and to regulate the workings of a passion they were unable\nto ignore. Since then the Church has claimed both the ability and the\nright to sanctify sex, and has looked with disfavour upon marriages\nconsummated by the State as an infringement of her monopoly.\n\nBut the fact that marriage has been instituted by God and cornered by\nthe Church is not sufficient to account for its existence before the\nChristian epoch or its stability since. These rest upon an economic\nfoundation.\n\nThroughout the recorded history of civilization the only recognized\nway for a woman to make her living has been through her body. Her\nbody being her one saleable asset, she could employ it in either of\ntwo ways. She could sell the use of it to one man for an indefinite\nperiod, or she could lease it to a number of men for short and strictly\nregulated periods. The first method is known as marriage; the second\nas prostitution. The existence of these two, and of only these two,\nways of gaining an economic livelihood has led to the formation of\ntwo unofficial women\u2019s Trade Unions, the Trade Union of wives and the\nTrade Union of prostitutes. The strength of these unions is directly\nproportional to their monopoly of the economic field, and far exceeds\nthat of any recognized Union in the more strictly industrial sphere.\n\nIt is immediately obvious that any woman who was prepared to give for\nlove or for nothing what other women were only prepared to give for\nmaintenance was a blackleg of the most subversive type, and the whole\nforce of organized female opinion has, therefore, been devoted to\nmaking her position impossible. The force of female opinion so directed\nis known as morality, and the bitterness with which the free lover,\nthat is to say, the woman who loves outside the marriage tie or the\nprostitute\u2019s preserves, is denounced as immoral, is due to woman\u2019s\nunconscious recognition of the fact that she is cutting at the basis of\nthe economic livelihood of her sex.\n\nIt is of course true that the two women\u2019s Unions are to some extent\ncompetitive, and that the existence of the prostitute threatens the\nsecurity of the wife while it guarantees the chastity of the young\ngirl. For this reason there is and always will be hostility between\nthe Unions. The wife\u2019s first commandment is the Deity\u2019s \u201cThou shalt\nhave none other woman but me\u201d, and she is accordingly accustomed to\nregard the prostitute with horror, whereas she does not object to the\nexistence of other wives, since this does not, at least in theory,\nthreaten her own. For this reason, too, the method of earning a living\nadopted by the wife is generally preferred to that adopted by the\nprostitute, and is esteemed the more honourable by public opinion.\nSo true is this that in most women the belief in the honourableness\nof wifehood has become second nature, the really nice woman feeling\ninstinctively that the only decent way for her to live is on the\nearnings of some man. But while this feeling provokes hostility to\nmembers of the other Union, it is a hostility which cannot compare\nin bitterness with the scorn and hatred felt for the free lover. The\nreason for this is obvious. The number of women a man can have for\nmoney is limited by the extent of his income; the number of women he\ncan have for nothing is limited only by the extent of his ability to\nfind them. For this reason it is felt instinctively that the free lover\nis a greater menace to society than the prostitute. The prostitute,\nindeed, is and always has been recognized as a social necessity. She\nguarantees the chastity of nice women by providing a necessary solace\nfor men up to the comparatively late age at which modern economic\nconditions allow them to marry. Thus in Tsarist Russia the brothel was\na State-recognized institution. The new brothel was formally opened\nby the police officer, and was hallowed by a religious ceremony in\nthe course of which the premises were blessed by a Russian Orthodox\npriest.[5]\n\n  [5] _Report of Labour Delegation_, 1925.\n\nSexual morality in men springs from the same economic source, but is\nmore limited in scope and less fiercely embraced. This is a natural\ndeduction from what has just been said. If the livelihood of women\nis bound up with the strict observance of the marriage tie, the\nmaintenance of the moral restrictions upon which marriage as an\ninstitution depends is their special concern. In a purely promiscuous\ncommunity the livelihood of women would be intolerably insecure. Hence\nwomen are the natural guardians of morality, knowing that it guarantees\ntheir bread and butter. It is not too much to say that morality as a\ngoing concern is kept up by women. Men on the whole, despite their\nstrong property sense, are not interested in moral questions. They\nhave not the woman\u2019s delight in nosing out scandals, and, except when\nthey are whipped up into a state of moral horror by their women folk,\nare much too prone to live and let live. The attitude of deliberate\nuncharitableness towards erring sisters which the sex affects does\nnot come naturally to men, and left to themselves, they would condone\noffences which their outraged spouses insist on punishing with social\nostracism.\n\nIt is on the whole true to say that the moral sense, so far as sex is\nconcerned, only begins to function in men after marriage and, except\nin the case of one\u2019s own daughter whose saleable value in the marriage\nmarket is thought to be diminished by inchastity, it centres upon the\nwife. Since the wife is in origin a piece of property purchased by the\nhusband for his own enjoyment, to her must be extended the jealous\nguardianship which presides over property in general. The wife is the\nmost valuable of a man\u2019s indoor possessions; in return for the use of\nher body he has agreed to maintain her in such dignity and leisure as\nhe can afford. This obligation to maintain the wife is a permanent one\npersisting even after the enjoyment of her person has ceased. Thus\nwhen a wife divorces or lives apart from her husband, he is usually\nrequired to maintain her, so long as she remains chaste. So soon,\nhowever, as she bestows the enjoyment of her person upon another, the\nobligation to maintenance ceases, presumably on the ground that the\nnew consumer should be saddled with the obligation of keeping up what\nhe enjoys. In nothing is the property basis of marriage more clearly\ndiscernible than in the \u2018dum casta\u2019 clause of the English divorce law.\n\nIt is upon the same economic basis that the husband\u2019s objection to\ninfidelity chiefly rests. If another man is permitted to enjoy for\nnothing what he himself has purchased at a heavy outlay, the husband\nnaturally feels aggrieved. He is also rendered ridiculous. It is for\nthis reason that the cuckold is always presented in literature as a\ncomic figure; he is in the position of a man who is unconsciously\nhaving his pocket picked. The husband\u2019s predilection for fidelity\nin the wife is thus as strong as the wife\u2019s demand for fidelity in\nthe husband\u2015\u2015at times it is even stronger\u2015\u2015and springs from the same\neconomic source. So long as the wife is in essence a piece of property,\nit is naturally felt that only the man who has paid for her should\nhave the use of her; so long as a woman can only obtain her living by\nselling herself to a man, she not unnaturally demands that others\nshould not be allowed to undercut her.\n\nWe have spoken of this situation as if it existed in the present; but\nit is already in many respects an affair of the past. The history of\nthe last fifty years has recorded the growing and continuous influx\nof women into wage-earning employment which bears no relationship\nto sex. Women cure the sick, plead in the law courts, teach in the\nschools, do manual labour in garden, field, factory, and workshop, and\nserve increasingly as clerks, typists and shop assistants. Three were\nrecently found among the five hundred applicants for the post of public\nexecutioner in Hungary.\n\nMen have not unnaturally resented this change. The dependence of\nwomen has on the whole suited them, and they do not like to see those\nwhose economic helplessness has made them a natural prey to male\npredatoriness rendered capable of standing on their own feet. Having\ndeliberately deprived women of the skill, the training, the knowledge,\nand the qualifications necessary to make their way in the world, men\nhave then proceeded to justify themselves by proving the moral and\nintellectual inferiority of women from the fact that she is ignorant,\nunskilled and uneducated. When it is remembered that the same causes\nthat have left woman no alternative but concubinage (married or\nunmarried) or starvation, have compelled her, as often as not, to\nperform the duties of an unpaid housekeeper, it is not difficult to\nsee how much man was the gainer by the transaction. But, unfortunately\nfor him, he has been unable to stem the rising tide of feminism. It\nhas long ceased to be true that a woman\u2019s only means of earning her\nliving is by exploiting her sex-attraction, and all the evidence\npoints to the fact that the number of women in wage-earning employment\nwill be augmented in the future. This estimate leaves out of account\nthe probability of the endowment of motherhood, which will place all\nmothers, whether married or unmarried, in the category of independent\nwage-earners.\n\nThe effect of this economic change upon the situation I have briefly\nsketched, and upon the moral sentiments to which it gives rise is\nlikely to be twofold.\n\nIn the first place the unmarried woman will tend increasingly to form\ntemporary, irregular unions. This result will follow:\n\n(1) Because her knowledge that she can earn her living in other ways\nwill not force her to demand from the man a pledge of life-long\nmaintenance as the price of her love.\n\n(2) Because knowing that she is not dependent upon a man for her\nlivelihood, she will no longer have the incentive to pander to the\nman\u2019s demand for virginity in his prospective wife by remaining chaste\nuntil marriage.\n\n(3) Because a man\u2019s abandonment of the connection which she has formed\nwith him, a process commonly known as desertion, will not as heretofore\nleave her stranded without means of support.\n\n(4) Because men will be less chary of forming temporary, sexual\nrelationships with women, when they know that they are not expected to\nkeep them.\n\nIn the second place the married woman will tend to mitigate her\nhostility to irregular unions formed by unmarried women when she\nrealizes:\n\n(1) That her husband\u2019s mistress, not being dependent upon him for\nsupport, will constitute a less formidable threat to her livelihood.\n\n(2) That the possible transference of her husband\u2019s affections\nand consequent withdrawal of financial support will not leave her\nnecessarily incapable of finding other employment.\n\n(3) That, as the clear-cut line of demarcation between married and\nunmarried unions becomes obscured by the increase in the number of the\nlatter, it will no longer be either possible or necessary to put the\nunmarried mistress as completely beyond the pale of decent society as\nhas been customary in the past.\n\nFrom the above considerations it will be seen that the growing\neconomic independence of women is likely, unless counteracted by other\nforces, to lead to a relaxation of the marriage tie, to an increase in\nirregular unions, and to a growing tendency to dispense with marriage\naltogether.\n\nBut, some critics will object, what about the children? Hitherto,\nI have left the children outside the scope of the argument, and it\nis high time to bring them in. This leads me to a consideration of\nthe second of the two factors which I cited at the beginning of the\nchapter, the practice of birth-control.\n\n\nII. That the practice of birth-control is likely to increase there can,\nI think, be no reasonable doubt. I am aware that there is considerable\nopposition to birth-control at the moment, and the various arguments\nare brought forward to discourage people from employing its methods.\nThese arguments are not held on rational grounds, but are dictated\nby prejudices based on certain religious or political opinions which\nthose who put them forward profess. It is said, for example, that\nbirth-control is displeasing to the Almighty, who invented sexual\nintercourse for the reproduction not of pleasure but of children; and\nit is thought, though not said, that it is injurious to the State\nbecause it will diminish the supply of cannon-fodder and cheap labour.\n\nAs regards the Almighty, whether he would agree with the views put\nforward by those who speak in his name is not known. Until, therefore,\nwe can obtain a direct expression of his opinion on the matter, it\nis more prudent to assume that his attitude is non-committal, than\nto supply the place of knowledge by converting our conjectures into\ndogmas. As regards the supply of cannon-fodder, this is supposed to be\nimportant for consumption in future wars. Since, however, those who\noppose birth-control on the ground that it will diminish the number of\nrecruits, also hold that wars are inevitable owing to the pressure of\nexpanding populations, it would seem that populations which cease to\nexpand have no need to maintain large armies to protect them from the\nresults of expansion.\n\nThe position of those who oppose birth-control being based on political\nand religious feelings of an emotional character is not, however,\nrefutable by argument, or assailable by reason. Our business is not to\nreply to arguments which have no rational basis, but to estimate what\ninfluence they are likely to have in the future.\n\nThere is, I think, little doubt that this influence will be a\ndiminishing one. Much of the opposition to birth-control is little\nmore than an expression of the generalized feeling of hostility which\npeople experience in regard to anything that is new. Whether it be\na new morality, a new sonata form, a new way of wearing the hair, a\nnew kind of corset (or none at all), or a new saviour of mankind with\nwhich he is presented, man\u2019s natural and instinctive reaction is one\nof antagonism. The antagonism is provoked not by any intrinsic demerit\nin the thing that arouses it\u2015\u2015indeed in fifty or a hundred years time\nit is embraced with acclamation as the last word in orthodoxy or good\nform\u2015\u2015but simply by its newness. The suggestion that any way of life,\nof thought or of conduct can be better than that which they have\nhitherto followed wounds people\u2019s self-respect, and some time must\nelapse before they can overlook the offence.\n\nThis kind of objection applies in a marked degree to birth-control\nwhich challenges people\u2019s most intimate habits, and seems likely to\neffect a revolution in their conduct. It will, however, diminish as\nthe idea of birth-control becomes familiar. The reaction of the normal\nEnglishman to that which is new usually passes through three phases.\nHe says first \u201cIt is absurd\u201d, second \u201cIt is contrary to Scripture\u201d, and\nthird \u201cOf course! I knew it all the time\u201d. It will be seen that the\nopposition to birth-control has already passed into the second phase.\n\nThere is a further reason for the probable weakening of the\nanti-birth-control movement. The organized opposition to birth-control\ncomes very largely from members of the upper and middle classes. These\non an average have very much smaller families than the lower classes in\nwhose interests they profess to oppose birth-control, and to whom they\ndenounce it. The inevitable inference from this fact cannot continue\nindefinitely to remain undrawn, and, as soon as it is drawn, the\nlower classes will be able to gauge the sincerity of those who exhort\nthem to choose between continence or children, while being themselves\nremarkable for neither.\n\nFinally the knowledge of the use of contraceptives is bound in course\nof time to percolate through every social stratum. The advantages of\nbirth-control to the individual are so obvious that few will refuse to\navail themselves of the knowledge which the State, in the persons of\nthe medical officers in charge of infant welfare centres, at present\nwithholds; while the disadvantages to the community of a system under\nwhich the lower strata proliferate unchecked, while the upper and\nmiddle classes barely keep up their numbers, and the exceptional man\nwho has the talent and energy to climb from one stratum into another\nfinds it necessary to sterilize himself in the process, will, in the\nshape of a rapidly deteriorating population, force themselves upon the\nnotice of even the most pious.\n\nBirth-control has come to stay; it has also knocked the bottom out of\nwhat is called sexual morality.\n\nIf the views put forward in the previous chapters be correct, if\nmorality is the interest of the stronger, and if, where the stronger\nis the herd of average individuals, it expresses itself in disapproval\nof conduct from which the average, for whatever reason, shrink,\nthen the driving force of morality is to be looked for not in any\ninnate sanction but in the power which the herd possess of rendering\nintolerable the lives of those who flout its prejudices. But in order\nthat the herd may be able to exercise this power, it must be in a\nposition to detect the objects of its censure. This has been possible\nin the past owing to the unfortunate propensity of sexual irregularity\nto result in offspring. It is not easy to disguise the existence of a\nchild, and, even if the desperate course of overlaying or otherwise\nextinguishing it be adopted, the disposal of the corpse presents grave\ndifficulties. Such a course is also open to the objection of doing\ngrave violence to the humaner parental instincts. But birth-control\nprecludes the necessity for children, and by so doing makes it possible\nto \u201csin\u201d without being found out.\n\nIt is not to be expected that people will refuse to avail themselves\nof the liberty thereby conferred. Whether we are to infer that people\nare by nature sinful, or simply that a sin which has been manufactured\nby herd morality is not really a sin, is a question that does not\nimmediately concern us. What does concern us is the impetus which this\nability to avoid detection is likely to give to irregular intercourse.\nBirth-control combined with economic independence has brought a new\nfreedom to women. Economic independence enables them to have children\nwithout going either to the altar or into the workhouse. The practice\nof birth-control makes it unnecessary even to have the children.\n\nOne further result of birth-control may be noticed before we pass on.\nThis is the probable abolition of the double standard of morality for\nmen and women after marriage. That adultery in a wife has always been\nconsidered to be more serious than adultery in the husband the state\nof the law bears witness. Adultery in a wife is a sufficient cause for\ndivorce, in a husband it[6] must be coupled with cruelty or desertion.\nThis disparity of treatment has always caused grave offence to feminist\norganizations. Yet the reason for the difference is not far to seek. It\narises from the economic dependence of the wife upon the husband. As\nthe result of this dependence any children which the wife may acquire\nin the course of her adventures become a charge upon the husband, who\nis thus required to pay for the fruits of his own shame and another\u2019s\nenjoyment. It is true that he is, or ought to be, similarly responsible\nfor the upkeep of the offspring which may result from his own adultery,\nbut in this case he has at least had his pleasure and sinned his sin,\nand cannot in justice complain if his substance is consumed by its\nfruits. Where, however, adultery on the part of the wife does not carry\nwith it a risk of children to be maintained by the husband, it becomes\nan offence neither more nor less serious than adultery on the part of\nthe husband, and the double standard ceases accordingly to operate.\n\n  [6] In July, 1923, the law was amended and adultery in the husband\n      became a sufficient ground of divorce.\n\nAs a result of the above-mentioned considerations we may expect that\nthe practice of birth-control will profoundly modify our sexual habits.\nIt will enable the pleasures of sex to be tasted without its penalties,\nand it will remove the most formidable deterrent to irregular\nintercourse.\n\nIt is this consideration which lies at the root of the opposition to\nbirth-control. Deep down in most of us there lurks something of the old\nPuritanical attitude, which insists that pleasure cannot or should not\nbe had without paying for it. This at least is true of pleasures we do\nnot share. And it is this sentiment which is outraged by the immunity\nfrom the consequences of sexual pleasure which birth-control confers.\nThe Puritans objected to bear baiting not so much because of the pain\nwhich it gave to the bear, as because of the pleasure which it gave\nto the spectators. In the same way the great mass of decent middle\nclass citizens object to birth-control not because of the evil which\nit does to the race, but because of the pleasure which it gives to\nthose who practice it. The Puritans are up in arms; the dowagers, the\naunts, the old maids, the parsons, the town councillors, the clerks,\nthe members of Vigilance Committees and Purity Leagues, all those who\nare themselves too old to enjoy sex, too unattractive to obtain what\nthey would wish to enjoy, or too respectable to prefer enjoyment to\nrespectability\u2015\u2015in a word, the makers of public opinion\u2015\u2015are outraged\nin their deepest feelings by the prospect of shameless, harmless and\nunlimited pleasure which birth-control offers to the young. And if they\ncan stop it it will be stopped.\n\nHence concurrently with the increased freedom which economic\nindependence and birth-control will give to young people, and to young\nwomen in particular, there is likely to be a growth in restrictive and\npurely inhibitory morality on the part of the middle-aged.\n\nWe are in, then, for a wave of Puritanism on the one hand combined with\nthe possibility of a new liberty of action on the other. What will be\nthe outcome?\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV\n\n                           THE COMING CLASH\n\n\nBefore I endeavour to answer the question with which I concluded the\nlast chapter, there are one or two additional considerations to which\nit is necessary to refer, since they must affect our estimate of the\nfuture.\n\nI have spoken of the possibility of a new freedom for women due to\nbirth-control and economic independence. Other factors are likely\nto make such freedom more imperative on social grounds and less\nintimidating on moral ones.\n\nThe first is the great and growing preponderance of women in the\ncommunity. It is estimated that in Great Britain there are already two\nmillion more women than men, and the figures can no doubt be paralleled\nfrom other Western European countries. Our present moral code condemns\nthese two million, and as many more as the number of bachelors\ninvolves, to perpetual celibacy and sterility. In other words one woman\nout of every ten is expected to deny herself the right to motherhood or\nto become an outcast from decent society.\n\nThis system is intolerable; it is manifestly breaking down in many\ndirections, and it continues at all only because public opinion among\nwomen is still too unorganized to protest against it. It is already\nthe subject of wholesale disregard and infringement in practice, and\nit will be abolished in theory as soon as the social sense of the\ncommunity has progressed to the point of removing the stigma from\nillegitimacy and the reproach from unmarried motherhood. In other words\nthe system is bound up with the man-made convention which insists that\nthe right to have a child shall be saddled with the duty of looking\nafter a man, and, since there are not enough men to go round, women\nwill sooner or later be forced in self-defence to permit themselves to\nhave children without husbands.\n\nSo far as the right to sexual experience, independently of the right of\nmotherhood, is concerned, this is already safeguarded by birth-control.\nThe growing surplus of women will tend, therefore, through the\nsheer pressure of virginity, to promote an increase in irregular\nrelationships, and to reinforce the movement towards freedom already\ndescribed.\n\nNor will religious considerations deter with their traditional force.\nI have already spoken of the decline of religious sentiment in\nconnection with the growth of moral rigour in the herd. Lacking the\nconviction that God will punish wrong-doers, they arrogate the right\nto themselves. But the same scepticism which lights the fires of the\nheresy-hunters encourages the wickedness of the heretics. If marriages\nwere not made by God, and torment in hell is probably not the result\nof adultery, there is no longer reason to think that five minutes\u2019\nbliss must be paid for in terms of eternal damnation. It is, no doubt,\ntrue, that God still loves the pure, but when earthly lovers are\navailable, the price of God\u2019s love may be not worth the paying. Hence\nthe religious argument, though doubtless it will operate as a brake\nin a diminishing number of cases, will no longer act as a wholesale\ndeterrent.\n\nA more serious consideration is put forward in the name of biology.\n\u201cYou are,\u201d the biologist will point out, \u201cconducting your argument on\nthe basis of certain assumptions with regard to the nature of women,\nsince you predict an increase in sexual irregularity not only among\nmen, but also, and inevitably, among women. Men, it is agreed, are\nregrettably promiscuous, in the sense that, even if they are monogamous\nin fact, they are varietist by inclination. But women are different.\nTheir nature is not varietist but monogamous, and it will, in spite of\nall changes of material circumstances and moral sentiments, remain so.\nFor this reason irregular sexual unions will not increase in the manner\nyou predict.\u201d\n\nBiological arguments of this type, derived from the alleged nature\nof women, are in my view mere man-made superstitions. The particular\nargument in question was invented by the peccant male who wished to\nconvince himself that, however flagrant his own infidelities, his wife\nwould remain faithful because it was her nature. The superstition was\nalso useful, because it implied that, although a life of unvarying\nfidelity might do violence to his natural proclivities, he need suffer\nno qualm of conscience in expecting and exacting conduct which he\nrepudiated for himself from his monogamous wife. The notion too was\nflattering and appealed readily to male conceit.\n\nNow as to the existence of the facts asserted by my imaginary\nbiologist, there is, I imagine, little doubt. There are, of course,\ncountless exceptions either way, but the general tendency is not\nobscure. While the cases of My Lord and the barmaid are legion, those\nof My Lady and the groom are notoriously few. But admitting the fact,\nare we to regard it as necessarily unalterable? Many, I know, are\ninclined to do so. Contemplating the domestic tragedies springing from\nthe nomadic tendencies of the male, they have seen in them one more\npiece of evidence for the satirical plan on which they believe the\nUniverse to have been constructed. If indeed there be design in the\nscheme of things, to what sort of design do the facts point? To have\nmade man polygamous and woman monogamous they regard as God\u2019s worst\npractical joke, and conclude that, whatever may have been the objects\nand disposition of the creator of the Universe, they were certainly not\nthose of a gentleman.\n\nBut is the fact really unalterable? May it not be the outcome of\ncenturies of servitude and seclusion, made absolute by the knowledge\nthat fidelity meant bread and butter and a home, infidelity starvation\nor the streets? Since the beginnings of recorded history the great\nbulk of women have, it is true, remained monogamous, but they may have\ndone so from fear of losing their jobs as wives if they did not. Those\nwho have been rich enough to stand upon their own financial feet, or\npowerful enough to snap their fingers at public opinion, have not been\nremarkable for strict observance of the marriage tie. The cases of\nMessalina, Catherine the Great and the modern film star, not to mention\na score of less notorious instances, are instructive. Significant too\nis the frequency of divorce among those who are sufficiently well to\ndo to afford the enormous fees exacted by the legal profession from\nthose who wish to change their partners. It is difficult, in the face\nof evidence of this kind, to avoid the conclusion that the monogamous\ntendencies of women are the product of training, circumstance, and\nenvironment, and will not outlast the economic disabilities which\nproduced them.\n\nIn any event the present existence of these tendencies, if tendencies\nthey be, affords no indication of what they may become in the future.\nThe fact that the primitive savage could only count on the fingers\nof one hand does not invalidate the existence of the multiplication\ntable, any more than the fact that most women want only one man each\nnow proves that they will not want more in a hundred years. The use of\nthe word \u2018natural\u2019 begs the question. We acquire those characteristics\nwhich our circumstances and environment demand, and then transmit them\nto our children in whom, being inherited, they are termed natural.\nBut this does not mean that our children will not in due course\ndevelop new characteristics of their own, if a change of circumstances\nrenders the old ones undesirable. There are signs indeed that the new\ncharacteristics are already beginning to appear. The attitude of\nrepresentative up-to-date women on this subject is curious. They tend\nto deny the difference between males and females which my imaginary\nbiologist alleged, and to declare that their inclinations are naturally\nas promiscuous as those of their husbands. The circumstance that they\ncontrol them better argues, they assert, more sense; it does not imply\na difference in nature.\n\nRemarks of this kind are often made by women who, nevertheless,\nlive exemplary lives and would scorn to revenge themselves upon an\nunfaithful husband by imitating his conduct. Nevertheless there is no\nreason to suppose that they deliberately misrepresent their feelings,\nand we can only conclude that, as usually happens, a new tendency is\nmanifesting itself in feeling some time before it is translated into\naction.\n\nFor these reasons I do not think that any convincing arguments as to\nthe future can be based on the alleged monogamousness of women in the\npresent. Nor, so soon as the force of the monogamous habit wanes, do I\nthink that women will consent to put up with the manifest disadvantages\nof a system which is based upon the assumption that it is as strong\nas it ever was. It is certain that they will not be deterred by the\nprotests of outraged males. Conventional morality, as I have already\npointed out, like many of our other institutions such as matin\u00e9es,\nconcerts and God, is kept going by women, and directly women withdraw\ntheir support, not all the opposition of men will avail to save it.\n\nWhat then is likely to happen?\n\nCertainly not a relapse into complete promiscuity. The belief that\npeople are fundamentally licentious, and that a partial removal of\nthe barriers with which society has hedged about the business of\nreproduction will precipitate the population into a welter of unbridled\nlicense, pleasantly shocking though it is to the minds of respectable\npeople, has absolutely no foundation in fact.\n\nThis belief springs from the doctrine of original sin, which has always\nbeen popular among quiet and well-behaved persons. If man is by nature\nwicked and sinful, and woman is very little better, then, indeed,\ncontraception and the economic independence of women will lead to an\norgy of sex indulgence in which the population will shuffle itself like\na pack of cards.\n\nNothing of the kind is likely to happen.\n\nThe purely sexual elements in love have come to occupy an entirely\ndisproportionate amount of attention owing to the taboos with which\nthey have been invested. Once these taboos are removed, they will\nrevert to their natural position of comparative unimportance. If it\nwere permissible to reproduce the sexual act upon the stage we should\nall lose our interest in chorus girls\u2019 legs. Moreover, playwrights\nwould not trouble to avail themselves of the permission.\n\nWithin reason, continence and constancy are natural to human beings. It\nis only the intolerable strain to which our absurd social arrangements\nhave subjected them that has caused us to regard ourselves as being by\nnature unfaithful and incontinent. There is no ground for the belief\nthat the average man or woman who allow themselves to be guided by\ntheir own impulses must needs be scoundrels. For among their impulses\nmust be numbered self-respect, moderation, and a sense of what is right\nand fitting. Because this sense may be, and often is, at variance with\nthe herd morality which is crystallized in the law, it does not mean\nthat it does not exist. On the contrary, it may be in advance of the\nmorality it disowns, so that people thrown helpless on their passions\nmay find that honesty, that self-respect, that hatred of cowardice\nand deceit, and the desire for cleanliness, health, and efficiency\nwere master passions disciplining them far more effectively than the\nartificial inhibitions of a mediaeval morality based on an obsolete\nreligion and deriving its power from lethargy and fear.\n\nSome changes in social arrangements there will no doubt be. In Russia,\nfor example, where the knowledge of birth-control is accessible to\nall classes, where any two parties by agreement, or either of the\ntwo parties by request, may obtain a divorce, and where no stigma is\nplaced upon illegitimacy, there has been a considerable relaxation of\nthe family system.[7] If this means, as it probably does, that unhappy\nfamilies have broken up and that husbands and wives who disliked each\nother have availed themselves of the opportunity to make a fresh start,\nwe need not regret the change. Nobody would contend that society\nis the gainer by condemning the unhappily married to a lifetime of\ndomestic misery, and it is difficult to see why the common sense of\nthe community which considers the wishes of the parties concerned a\nsufficient ground for consummating their marriage does not regard the\nwishes of the same parties as a sufficient reason for terminating it.\n\n  [7] _Report of Labour Delegation_, 1925. It is interesting to note\n      that this relaxation has taken place concurrently with a marked\n      decrease in prostitution.\n\nOn the other hand it is unlikely that those who are happily married\nwill rush to the Registrar with the object of making themselves\nmiserable by separating, simply because reasonable divorce laws give\nthem the opportunity to do so. It would be an interesting experiment,\nand one which would enable us to estimate the extent of marital\nunhappiness, to proclaim a day of conjugal amnesty at recurring\nintervals. We might, for example, celebrate the coronation of every\nnew king by giving to all married couples the right to dissolve\ntheir marriages, and seek other mates. If advantage were not taken\nof the facilities offered within twenty-four hours, there would be a\ncompulsory reversion to the _status quo ante_. Or it might be better\nto fix definite periods between the days of amnesty, so that they\nwould recur at regular intervals. Each general election might serve\nas a signal for a conjugal General Post, so that couples would have\nthe chance of gaining their freedom every five years. I myself would\nadvocate the institution of such amnesties, although I believe that the\namount of conjugal dislocation they would cause would be surprisingly\nsmall. It is difficult to avoid feeling sentimental at the prospect of\nparting even from those whom we dislike, and the fact that couples were\nno longer bound in law would only tighten the bonds of sentiment. A\nwould feel that, unpleasant as B had been, he could not very well let\nher down, and B would shrink from leaving A with no one to look after\nhim, even when she had herself looked after him very badly. You cannot,\nin short, live with any one for a number of years without dreading the\nprospect of their loss. The knowledge, moreover, that quinquennial\nescape was possible might lead to married people treating their\npartners with at least the degree of civility they at present reserve\nfor their acquaintances. I do not think, therefore, that the changes\ncaused by a conjugal amnesty would be very extensive.\n\nFor the above reasons I conclude that the social results of the changes\nI have been describing will amount to little more than a diminution\nin the number of unhappy marriages, and an increase in the number of\nexperimental unions.\n\nBut it is not to be supposed that the herd will see the matter in\nthis light. Nothing exceeds the license taken by the imaginations of\nvery rigid people, and there is little doubt that the vast mass of\nrespectable citizens, appalled and horrified by what they will insist\non regarding as the prospect of growing and unlimited license, will\nrise to meet the situation with panic and persecution. And since, for\nthe reasons already given, morality in a modern community is that\nkind of conduct which suits the stronger, we may expect a revival of\nPuritanism expressing itself in a new robustness and acerbity in the\nmoral sense of the herd.\n\nSymptoms of this revival are not wanting in this country. If, however,\nwe wish to see the clearest portents of what is coming we must, as I\nhave hinted above, look to America. America, as I have already pointed\nout, leads the world in morals as in everything else. That American\ncitizens set great store by morality is notorious. With their constant\nPurity Crusades, Puritan pogroms, Vigilance Committees, and popular\njuries of selected citizens, who visit surreptitiously and report\nupon the moral tone of New York plays, they put our more decadent\ncivilization to shame. On what sort of lines do these engines of\nAmerican morality take action? One instance must suffice. In April of\nthis year, one Miss Jewell Barker went bicycling in white knickers.\nHer outraged neighbours showed their sense of this vicious act by\nproceeding to seize and flog Miss Barker\u2019s father. This is at once to\nusurp and to invert the divine privilege of visiting the sins of the\nfathers upon the children.\n\nAmerica is, of course, pre-eminently the Land of Liberty, and we cannot\nhope to emulate her highest feats. Efforts are, however, not wanting\nof our endeavours to live up to the standard our cousins set.\n\nI will quote at random one or two American examples with their British\nparallels.\n\n_America._ There is sumptuary legislation designed to check the license\nof the stage. \u201cThere is\u201d, we are told, \u201ca rule in some American towns\nthat the chorus girls must wear stockings, although the principals are\nallowed to appear with bare legs\u201d.\n\n_England._ In recent months there has been a strong provincial movement\nagainst the indecency and unpleasantness of the plays produced in\nLondon. Respectable citizens complain that they never can tell what\nsalacious beastliness may not be sprung upon their protesting eyes and\nears, what searchlight cast upon the Aug\u00e6an stables of high society.\nActors and actresses have expressed their views, pointing out that\na pure stage is as good a paying proposition as a nasty one, and\ninvoking the case of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas to bear witness\nto the truth of their contention. These operas, a notorious commercial\nsuccess, have never been known to bring a blush to the most bourgeois\ncheek. A number of London women have accordingly banded themselves\ntogether vowing to purify the stage. Protests are to be made nightly\nin theatres at which plays to which objection is taken are performed.\n\u201cWe shall stick at nothing,\u201d said the leader of the campaign, \u201cto make\nour protest effective\u201d.\n\nConcurrently with this development there has arisen a demand for a\nstricter censorship. I think it probable that we are on the threshold\nof a period resembling the early seventeenth or middle nineteenth\ncenturies, when life as it is will be driven off the stage by the\nPuritans\u2019 demand for life as it ought to be, love will give place to\nsentiment, and reality to romance.\n\n_America._ A new teetotal version of the Bible is promised from\nAmerica. The festive passages are all dry, the words \u2018raisin cake\u2019\ntaking the place of the word \u2018wine\u2019 wherever the latter occurs in the\nAuthorized Version. Thus we have \u201cAnd he dealt to everyone of Israel,\nboth men and women, to everyone a roll of bread, a portion of meat and\na cake of raisin\u201d.\n\n_Scotland._ Steps were taken in the spring of this year to transfer to\nScotland a film depicting the explorations of Livingstone. An extract\nfrom the daily paper tells us that \u201cProhibitionists there are already\nstrenuously objecting to the incident which shows Livingstone, after\nhe has been found by Stanley, drinking champagne with his rescuer!\nThe difficulty is that the incident is historically correct ... and\nthe problem is whether truth should be suppressed in the interests of\nmorality. \u2018At any rate\u2019 said the Secretary of the London Missionary\nSociety \u2018the raising of the question _is evidence of the progress made\nsince his time_.\u2019\u201d It can scarcely be doubted that if the meeting had\ntaken place to-day, Livingstone would have acknowledged the march of\nprogress by drinking water.\n\nA straw shows the direction of the wind, and I should not be at all\nsurprised to see Scotland go dry in the next fifty years, especially if\nshe is successful in obtaining Home Rule. If Scotland goes dry, it is\nnot to be expected that England will fail ultimately to follow suit.\nThe increase in efficiency among dry workmen is very great, and if\nthe business men remain \u201cthe stronger\u201d in the community, they cannot\ncontinue indefinitely to be blind to its advantages, especially as they\nthemselves would be immune from the hardships it entails. If we ask\nwhether an officially dry but unofficially wet business class, and a\nworking class which is dry both officially and unofficially, does not\nmean one law for the rich and another for the poor, our answer is that\nconventional morals always does mean this.[8]\n\n  [8] Cp. the case of the legs of the chorus and the principals, p. 70.\n\nThe practice of virtue, we are often told, is dependent upon the\npossession of a sufficient income. It is only the well to do who can\nafford to be generous, honest, and unselfish, because they have no\ntemptation to be otherwise. But what is true of virtue is equally true\nof vice, and the experience of the working of prohibition in America\nshows how easy it is for the rich to procure illicit indulgences which\nare out of the reach of the poor.\n\nThere is likely to be legislation against wantonness in dress. By\nwantonness is meant the practice among females of unnecessarily\nexposing parts of their body. The curious belief that the body is in\nsome way disgraceful, and that the exhibition of it is, therefore,\nwicked is very prevalent among Western peoples. It arises partly\nfrom natural prudery, partly from the property view of marriage,\nand partly from the inclemency of the climate which makes bathing a\ncomparative rarity. The Japanese who have a bath twice a day, observe\nno discrimination between the sexes in their bathing. \u201cOne day\u201d, said\nthe Marquis of X who had just returned from Japan, \u201cmy wife went to\nhave a bath, and she got as far as the rinsing stage when two young\nJapanese came in. She had to take refuge in the tank, screaming at the\ntop of her voice until the two young men were taken away. They no\ndoubt thought her a very fastidious young woman\u201d.\n\nThe conviction that the body is wicked and ought to be concealed is\nimportant, because it leads women to expose portions of it which they\nwould otherwise protect, and rightly protect, from the rigours of the\natmosphere, in the belief that they are making themselves attractive.\nThus women swathed in layers of furs in respect of the rest of their\npersons, will venture forth on the coldest day with bare bosoms and\nopen-work stockings. It is with the same object that, though their\nreligion bids them mortify the flesh and refrain from making of\nthemselves a stumbling block to others, they will appear at dinner\nwith necks, bosoms, backs, and arms completely naked, a proceeding not\nonly acquiesced in but encouraged by their males. This sort of thing\nis anathema to the herd, who cannot afford the evening dress and the\nfurs, and to the old, the condition of whose bodies does not, except\nin the case of the incurably optimistic, permit them to take the same\nliberties as their daughters. Hence we may expect a considerable\nstiffening of public opinion in the matter of decorum in dress and a\nreturn to the days in which everything except the hands and the face\nwas carefully covered up.\n\nIn the sphere of what is called sexual morality we may expect a growing\ntendency to make wickedness (that is to say conduct which is not in the\ninterests of the stronger) punishable by law. Attempts will be made,\nand successfully made, to multiply crimes by Act of Parliament.\n\nA good example of this tendency will be found in the Bill entitled\n_The Children, Young Persons, etc., Bill_, introduced by a Labour\nMember during the tenure of office by the Labour Government in 1924.\nIt represents bourgeois or herd morality \u201cin excelsis.\u201d It is known as\nthe _Offences against the Person Bill_, and its object is to codify\nand extend the existing enactments against abortion, cruelty to\nchildren, offences against children, and neglect of children. Many of\nits provisions are admirable and afford what is no doubt a necessary\nprotection to children against suffering and neglect. Nevertheless it\nmenaces individual liberty in two ways. In the first place it increases\nthe number of offences punishable by law, often in an arbitrary manner.\nFor example, it is made a crime punishable by two years hard labour for\na girl of sixteen to have intercourse with a young man of eighteen, the\ncriminal being not, as one might have expected, the elder of the two\nparties concerned, but the girl. She alone is liable to imprisonment;\nthe young man is allowed to go free. It is also a criminal offence to\nconceal the birth of a dead child, to cause or encourage a child to\nbeg, or to celebrate the marriage of a boy and a girl under sixteen,\nsuch marriages being declared invalid.\n\nIn the second place the Bill authorizes grave interference with\npersonal privacy. The officers and inspectors charged with executing\nits multifarious provisions are given unlimited powers of search,\nand authorized in certain cases to arrest without warrant. Even if\na bill of this kind were to be administered by angels or sages, the\nopportunities for espionage and surveillance which it bestows would\nbe sufficiently offensive. Since, however, its provisions will in\nfact be enforced by inspectors and constables drawn from the lower\nmiddle classes, who will be only too willing to denounce as flagrant\nimmorality whatever transcends the experience of Clapham, the measure\nstands revealed as an attempt to endow the herd with increased powers\nof interference and control over the private lives of those who venture\nto stand outside it.\n\nEncouragement would also be given to malevolent and offensive persons\nwho wished to do harm to their neighbours by laying information against\nthem. In general, liberty would be diminished, offences multiplied,\nand the individual rendered more subservient to public opinion than is\nthe case to-day.\n\nAnother expression of herd feeling will be a growing tendency to\nenquire into the private lives of those who hold public appointments.\nThe herd, that is to say, will increasingly demand of those who fill\npositions of eminence and authority in the land that they shall\nconform in practice, and profess to conform in belief, to the code of\nprejudices and preferences which it pretentiously calls its morals.\nEven to-day, at the end of half a century of individualist thinking,\nfitness to perform a particular job is one of the least important\nqualifications in a candidate. What is important is that he shall\nbe a member of a recognized religious sect, such as the Church of\nEngland or one of the sub-sects of Nonconformity, that he shall\nlive with one wife, avoid divorcing and being divorced, and display\nstudiously temperate habits. He must also exercise discretion in his\npublic utterances, be judiciously but not violently patriotic in his\nsentiments, eschew extreme views in politics, refrain from supporting\nunpopular causes, and on all occasions give the herd the answers it\nexpects. Thus in Wales it is difficult if not impossible for a man to\nhold any public appointment unless he is a member of a particular\nchapel, and at English Universities many teaching posts are reserved\nfor those in Holy Orders. Given the capacity for reflecting the\nopinions and flattering the prejudices of the many, men of acknowledged\nincompetence may successfully aspire to the most responsible posts.\nThere is indeed no post in the country a man cannot hold with credit,\nif he can only succeed in holding his tongue.\n\nConformity rather than intelligence is more particularly required of\nthose who seek to instruct the young. A man\u2019s ability to demonstrate\nthe differential calculus or impart the facts of history would not, it\nis true, appear to be lessened by his having passed through the divorce\ncourt. Yet there is no doubt that such an event will cast a blight upon\nhis career as a teacher. People are too satisfied with their own ways\nof thought and habits of conduct to wish for their children anything\nbetter than that they should think and act as they do themselves. What\nis demanded of the teacher, therefore, is that he should transmit to\nthe children the same beliefs as those which are held by their parents.\nHe must hold up to their admiration those things which their parents\nconsider to be admirable, such as God, vaccination, monogamy, the\nTreaty of Versailles and the capitalist system, and speak with scorn\nand contempt of Bolshevism, atheism, Germany, free love and agitators,\nwhom parents consider to be evil. When the teacher does this he is what\nis called a safe man. He inspires confidence and obtains preferment.\nProvided, in short, that he guarantees not to teach anything new, his\ncapacity to teach anything at all is not seriously questioned. And,\nsince the best minds of every generation, being in advance of their\ntime, would prefer not to teach at all rather than to perpetuate the\ndogmas in which they have ceased to believe, the successful teacher is\nnot always remarkable for intelligence.\n\nIn any event, whether intelligent or not, he must conform, and will\nhave to do so increasingly. The herd morality which drove a statesman\nof the calibre of Dilke out of public life because it disapproved\nof his private life, is, after a temporary relapse, increasing in\nstrength, and in the immediate future nobody who does not profess the\nmorality to which the middle classes adhere will stand any chance of\npublic office. If a man\u2019s actions belie his professions he must be\ncareful to conceal them.\n\nOne of the results of this development will be an increase in\nhypocrisy. To-day the agnostic don at Oxford worships regularly in\nthe College Chapel, and men will be driven increasingly to give\nlip-service to ideals and shibboleths which in their hearts they\ndespise. In general, the gulf which separates public profession and\nprivate practice, a gulf which has made England a byword for hypocrisy,\nwill grow wider. Driven to profess the beliefs of shopkeepers, men will\nrely increasingly upon their private judgment as a sanction for their\nconduct. Hence the attempt to impose a uniform standard based upon an\nobsolete morality upon our public men may lead to a revival of that\nunfashionable organ the private conscience, and those from whom an\nunwilling conformity is exacted in public, will insist that they and\nthey alone are the judges of what is right and wrong in private.\n\nI have taken the _Offences against the Person Bill_ as a typical\ninstance of the kind of legislation in which the new Puritanism may\nexpress itself. It indicates a return to the Greek conception that men\ncan be made good by Act of Parliament. In the late nineteenth and early\ntwentieth centuries this conception was regarded with disfavour. As the\nresult of the individualist thinking of the preceding fifty years, the\nidea that there was one good life which all men ought to lead had been\nabandoned. The individualist view was that there were different kinds\nof good lives for different men, as many in fact as there were men to\nlive them, and that it was, therefore, impracticable to establish by\nlaw a positive standard of ethical conduct to which all must conform.\nIn so far as law had any function in the matter, it was, by prohibiting\nviolence and the cruder forms of robbery, to guarantee to the community\na certain background of order without which no good life was possible.\nSince the mere process of obeying the law did not make a man a good\nman but only restrained him from certain unappetizing kinds of vice\nby which no decent upper or middle class citizen was attracted, it\nfollowed that the function of the law was negative merely; its object\nwas to prevent citizens from so conducting themselves that nobody could\nbe virtuous, not to define virtue or to tell men how to attain it. The\ndefinition of virtue was a matter for the individual\u2019s insight, and\nthe attainment of virtue a matter for the individual\u2019s conscience;\nprovided, therefore, that a man abstained from the grosser forms of\nanti-social conduct which were prohibited by law, the question of what\nhe ought to do, and what refrain from doing, was one which he alone\ncould decide.\n\nI believe that this nineteenth and early-twentieth century\nlibertarianism in matters of thought and conduct is decreasing and will\ncontinue to decrease. The cult of uniformity is hostile to the liberty\nof the individual, and in order to secure the performance of conduct\nof which the herd approves, the legislature is likely to assume a more\npositive control over men\u2019s lives than has been customary in the past.\nWe shall, in other words, revert to the conception of one good life for\nall men, or rather for all poor men, a good life which it is conceived\nto be the business of the State and of public opinion to promote.\n\nSumming up, therefore, we may predict the immediate future somewhat\nas follows: Coming into contact with the increased facilities for\nfreedom of action to which reference has been made, the new itch to\nregulate men\u2019s lives will lead to persecution and heresy-hunting. Men\nwill be hounded out of public life because of their private morals,\nand acceptance of certain habits of belief and codes of conduct will\nbe made indispensable to the holding of public appointments. Instead\nof choosing for a post the man who is best qualified to do the job, we\nshall choose the man who most nearly reflects the habits of thought\nand conduct of the selection board, that is to say, of the herd who\nelected the selection board to represent them. The growth of Puritanism\nwill bring a growth in hypocrisy, a fruitful and invaluable offshoot\nof Puritanism. There will be an even greater disparity between men\u2019s\npractices and their professions than there is at present, and their\nprofessions will tend increasingly to condemn their practices. The\nworld, in short will become a paradise for the average man and a hell\nfor the exceptional one.\n\nSo much we may expect during the next fifty years. If, however, I am\nasked which of the two opposing tendencies I have attempted to describe\nin this book will ultimately prevail, my answer is that it will not\nbe the bourgeois Puritanism whose apparent victory I foresee in the\nimmediate future. Nor, indeed, do I think that that victory will be\nmore than apparent.\n\nThe history of morals, like that of politics, follows the swing of the\npendulum, and some reaction on the part of each generation from the\nhabits of its fathers seems to be inevitable. In so reacting it reverts\nto those of its fathers\u2019 fathers. Thus each generation tends to take\nthe gods of its grandfathers from the shelf upon which its fathers have\nplaced them.\n\nTo-day we are at the beginning of a period of reaction from the license\nof the War. The difference between young people of between the ages\nof eighteen and twenty-four and their predecessors of seven years ago\nis very marked. The latter were casual, offhand, and easy-going. They\nobserved little ceremonial in their relationships with each other,\nsmoked, flirted and made love when and where they pleased, married in\nhaste and repented at leisure or dispensed with marriage altogether,\nand despised rather than revered the aged to whom they were a constant\nsource of horror and amazement. What is perhaps most noticeable about\ntheir successors to-day is their improvement in manners. They are\nchivalrous to women, considerate to the old, maintain a decorum at\ndances which is positively Victorian, and instead of hastening to\nestablish sexual relations with whomsoever attracts them, have actually\ngone out of their way to postpone the fruition of their desires by a\nreintroduction of the rite known as \u201cengagement\u201d.\n\nIn particular, women, no longer treated as the equals of men, are\nalternatively worshipped and disregarded, blown aloft like soap bubbles\nor jettisoned as lumber. The reaction, in short, is already well under\nweigh, and its influence for many years to come will be great.\n\nBut the normal cycle of action and reaction, of licentious eighteenth\nand Puritanical nineteenth centuries, depends for its recurrence on\nthe entrance of no new factors; it is bound up that is to say with the\nproperty status of women and the production of children as the fruit\nof sexual intercourse. Once new factors are introduced, it may well\nbe thrown permanently out of gear. Birth control and the economic\nindependence of women are to my mind factors of this kind. The changes\nthey portend are incalculable, and, though their full effects may be\ndelayed for two or three decades, no Puritan revival nor any number\nof such revivals, whether backed by the law or finding expression in\npublic opinion merely, will in the long run be able to stand against\nthem.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am conscious that what I have written in this book will seem to many\nto be cynical and disruptive. I shall be charged with taking a low view\nof human nature, and speaking slightingly of morality. My answer is,\nfirst, that what I have written of in these pages is not human nature\nas a whole, but that part of human nature only which expresses itself\nin what is called morality; and secondly, that what is called morality\nis not in any true sense of the word morality at all. Morality, as I\nunderstand it, is positive: it insists that certain things are good and\nought to be pursued even if the heavens fall. But the habits of thought\nand standards of conduct I have analyzed in this book, although they\nare called morality, are not positive but negative. Their appeal is to\nmen\u2019s fears rather than to their hopes; they tell them not what they\nmust do to be saved, but what they must not do if they are to avoid the\ncensure of society. Their basis is the instinct to possess, and their\nweapon the power to blame. Men blame those who claim a liberty they\ndare not assert for themselves, and dignify with the name of morality\nthe indulgence of possessive instincts in which savages glory without\nhypocrisy. \u201cWhat could I have done in the circumstances?\u201d asked the\nhusband of an erring wife in a recent society scandal case. \u201cIf you ask\nme to tell you I will. You could have told your wife that if she went\nwith the man again, you would get her divorced. You could then have\ngone up to London and assaulted Sir X Y, and to hell with your career\u201d,\nreplied the eminent counsel on the other side.\n\nThis is the law of the jungle; it is the expression of most of what\npasses for morality to-day, and, while it prevails, there is little\nhope for the world. Of positive morality which brings the conviction\nthat some things are good and ought to be pursued for their own sake,\nthere has never been less. It is doubtful indeed whether a positive\nmorality can exist without a strong and lively religious feeling, and\nreligion was never at so low an ebb.\n\nThe emotional enthusiasm which religion generates is indispensable to\na true morality. For good or for evil religion is the looser of great\nforces. It may be captured and made to serve base ends, but under the\ninfluence of the emotion which it creates men can be brought to believe\nthat some things _are_ better than others, and to overcome any obstacle\nin order that the good things may prevail. It is this belief which is\nlacking in the world to-day.\n\nUntil, then, the life-force can contrive again to send a great\nreligious teacher into the world, a true, positive morality will be\nlacking. The man who is born in England will continue to believe that\nit is right to marry one wife, and the man who is born in Persia\nwill continue to believe that it is right to marry four, and each\nwill invoke morality to justify his belief. Such morality is merely\ntopographical; it reflects no conception of what is good, and it gives\nus no hope that the world can be made better because it does not\nbelieve that its own world is bad.\n\nMeanwhile the less we write and think about morality the better. A\nworld without religion is a sad and a tiring world because it lacks an\nobject, and for this reason there have been few generations which have\nknown less happiness than our own. In such a world those who think the\nleast have the best of it. In such a world reflection can only produce\ndespondency, and it is better to take our professions and prejudices\nready made from the social shop, than to embark on a sea of troubles\nby thinking out a morality for ourselves, to act with the business man\nrather than to brood with the philosophers.\n\nIn a new and positive morality in which men can believe lies the hope\nfor the world; yet such a morality cannot come without a revival of\nreligion. Religion and religion alone gives the driving force which\nimpels men to change things, and until a religious attitude to the\nworld again becomes part of man\u2019s common heritage, all the apparent\nchanges in morality, of which different ages and countries are the\nwitnesses, will fail to disguise the fundamental fact that there is no\nmorality to change.\n\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n\n \u2015\u2015Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n\n \u2015\u2015Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.\n\n \u2015\u2015Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.\n\n \u2015\u2015Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.","title":"Thrasymachus : $b or, The future of morals","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":18628}