Appendix I — On Some Aspects of Christian Duty
The conception of morality as a system of positive Divine Law, and the ‘juridical method’ which is said to mark early Christian writers on ethics598, is perhaps attributable to the growth of an imperial spirit in the Church when she found herself confronted with the task of reducing to order the social chaos into which the fall of the Empire plunged Europe. S. Leo may be said to embody this spirit in a majestic personal form. The mark of Roman authority rests on the ordinances of the Church of this period. It may be that her rules of duty wear something of the aspect of a fixed, unvarying code. The moral problems with which she has to deal are comparatively simple; they admit of clear, concise treatment, in accordance with a fixed system of discipline; sharp distinctions are possible: and the Gospel thus presents to the world the features of an external Law.
Be this as it may, widely different conditions seem now to demand a definite system of Christian duty,—a study of ‘special’ or ‘applied ethics.’ The main feature of modern life is not social disorganization, but complexity of relationships; and although in the abstract no such thing is possible as a ‘conflict of duties;’ yet it is clear that duty is not always simple, or obvious. We need in fact something like a system of casuistry; of ethics applied to novel spheres, and special points of obligation. It is indeed reasonable to expect that as civilization advances, and new realms open up which the Christian spirit must appropriate, the Law of duty will be enriched; there will be expansion of its content: e.g. the development of Industry makes desirable the formulation of the ‘Ethics of Labour;’ the rise of a special class may raise the question whether ‘class virtues’ are to be recognised, and how they are to be estimated, by Ethics599.
In this appendix some purpose may be served by noticing a few pressing moral problems of our time; some spheres of duty as to which guidance or development of principles seems called for.
i. In the sphere of self-regarding duty a point which needs attention is the truth of personal responsibility. There are influences at work which threaten the sense of accountability, whether for conduct or belief. There are of course speculative difficulties surrounding the question of freedom; there is wide misconception of its true meaning; but it needs to be clearly taught, that granted all limitations of the power of choice, moral responsibility remains for the use of the character, as of the property, which a man inherits600. A man’s moral constitution, rigidly defined though it be by heredity, is yet his ‘heritage,’ his natural endowment, for the right direction of which he is responsible. The weak sense of this plain fact is noticeable in the lax and indulgent tone often used respecting criminals. ‘To some of us,’ it has been justly said, ‘the individual is always innocent and society always guilty601.’ The degree of guilt, however, may be minimized (e.g. by the plea of ignorance), while the fact of it remains.
In this connection statistics of crime have a value which needs to be estimated. Do they point to conditions of society which must be faced as unalterable? or do they not rather usefully indicate the proper channels into which the stream of social energy should be directed?
Again, in the matter of personal belief, it is often assumed that there is no responsibility. The question, however, for each individual, if rightly stated, is simply this, ‘What has been my attitude towards that which has presented itself to me as truth602?’
Another point of importance is the moral culture of Imagination, in relation chiefly to aesthetic recreation in its different forms, the Theatre, the pursuit of Art, the reading of Fiction. We are learning by serious experience the enormous power of fancy to kindle passion, and to colour human actions. In view of the spread of depraving literature, energetic assertion of duty towards this department of personality is needed. Such duty seems to be recognised in Phil. iv. 8.
ii. Passing to the sphere of family obligations, it is natural to remark on the break-up of family life which is so common a consequence of highly-developed industry. The employment of women in factories, etc., tends to make them unfit for domestic duties; while that of children encourages a spirit of independence which is not without social danger; thus not only the sense of parental duty, but the respect for parental authority, is impaired. Christians are bound to discountenance, or at least to counteract, this state of things so far as it interferes with the rudiments of moral discipline.
The pressing need of our day, however, would appear to be some clear teaching on the subject of marriage. There are different aspects of the marriage contract recognised in Scripture. But Christianity can make no terms with those theories which have borne fruit in lax legislation on divorce, with all its mischievous results. Marriage, according to the Christian view, is a serious vocation, with its own sacred duties, and special consecration. Improvident marriage is as immoral from a Christian as from an anti-Christian point of view603. Ethical considerations ought to guide or restrict the intention to marry; and with regard to the question of population, Christianity condemns any theory which offers a substitute for rational self-restraint. The true end of marriage, again, is something higher than ‘happiness’; it is appointed for the mutual enrichment of personality, mutual freedom to fulfil the true ideal of human life. The whole subject has indeed become involved in difficulties which cannot be encountered by any mere statement of principles. There is no doubt, however, of the end which the Christian treatment of this point must keep in view.
iii. As to the social sphere generally, we begin by remarking that, from the Christian standpoint, every transaction between man and man is to be regarded as personal, and therefore ethical. The most significant fact perhaps of our time is the process of transition from (so-called) political to ethical economics. To reason rightly on social problems we must ever have regard to personality. For ethical purposes the abstract terms Capital, Labour, Production, Wealth, etc., must be replaced by personal terms, Employer, Employé, Producer, Man of Wealth, etc. Our problem is how to supersede the technical and legal relation by the personal604.
This being our fundamental point of view, we find that ethics will treat equally of rights and duties. A Christian theory of rights is required. The prevailing view of them is individualistic. It is forgotten that the rights of one man have their ground in the obligations of another; they are limited by the claims of other personalities on our own; ‘right’ is, in fact, a condition making possible the fulfilment of duty. It is thus a matter of Christian concern (to suggest mere examples) that workers should attain to the possibility of free self-development: healthy conditions of work, the enjoyment of domestic life, security of maintenance, perhaps permanence of contract, opportunities of recreation and culture,—everything, in fact, which will give them fair chance of healthful and worthy human life. Christianity can be content with nothing short of this.
On the other hand duties call for notice. Modern capitalists form a class whose responsibilities it is difficult adequately to measure. The general principle, however, is easily repeated: that it is the duty of the wealthy, or those who employ workers, to respect the personality of their employés, to treat them not as machines, but as men. Thomas Carlyle well describes the aim that should guide this influential class: ‘to be a noble master among noble workers, the first ambition: to be a rich master, only the second.’
Industrial development indeed brings into prominence many questions of duty and right, which can be solved only by deeper apprehension of the Christian standpoint: and of ‘morality as an industrial force605:’ for the ties which bind men in the relation of brotherhood and sonhood are the noblest and strongest.
The duties of a state are matters of controversy, and open a field not lightly to be entered. It is clear, however, that adequate pressure can only be brought to bear on governing classes by an educated public opinion, rather we should say an enlightened moral sense, in the community. It is impossible to foresee the results that might ensue from the growth of moral opinion on such points as the state regulation of vice, the just causes of war, the restriction of the hours of labour, the treatment of semi-civilized dependencies, the true lines to be followed by education. It is this tremendous potency of public opinion that points to the great need of modern democracy: the education, namely, of feeling and character; the cultivation of reverence and the faculty of admiration, of self-control and sobriety in judgment and thought. How far a merely intellectual training will produce this character can scarcely be a matter of controversy. A vast field of inquiry and study is thus evidently open to economic moralists: and it has been opportunely suggested that the effort to study, ‘in the light of the revealed will of God, the intricate problems of society,’ might be a common bond between different sections of Christendom, and might promote that unity of God’s Church, which is the true condition of effectual social reform606.
iv. In the Church, or moral community which embraces and leavens the state, special points of duty arise: e.g. respecting the limits of the Church’s self-adaptation to the tendencies of the age, and her relation to the anti-Christian principle in society. Hence arise difficult questions as to the true bases of Toleration, and of submission to the civil power. We may be sure that principles of action and thought can be reached only by closer study of Christ’s words in relation to modern life607, as the practical instinct of the Church has interpreted them. A similar problem is raised by the advance of Science and Criticism. Christians are charged with being behind scientific men in their apprehension of ‘the morals of assent608.’ Whatever truth there is in such a reproach, it at least utters a note of warning.
v. Once more, if we consider the non-personal realm with which man is brought in contact, we must face the problem of duties towards the lower animals. We have seen that such duties have a ground in reason: but their nature and extent are not well defined. It is important to study our Lord’s attitude towards nature, for which He uniformly exhibits, especially in His parables and miracles, such feeling and love. The practice of vivisection, for example, raises a question as to the limits of the dominium naturae committed to man; and his right to employ creaturely life as a means. There is of course a practice of vivisection which is utterly immoral: as when it is prompted by mere pleasure in experimenting, or by idle curiosity; or is carried on without strict intention and reasonable prospect of meeting a particular need.
Within the limits of an essay it would be presumptuous to do more than raise such questions as the foregoing; we perhaps best display a sense of their gravity by leaving them as suggestions for systematic discussion. For it has been justly observed with regard to ethical problems that ‘the actual solution is itself an art, a gift which cannot be taught.’
Notes
598 Sidgwick, Outlines, etc., p. 108.
599 These are perhaps implied in S. Luke iii. 10-14.
600 Cp. Mr. Cotter Morison, Service of Man, p. 214.
601 R. W. Dale, Cont. Rev., May, 1889. Consider S. Luke xxiii. 34.
602 See Dean Church, Human Life and its Conditions, Serm. III. init.
603 See Service of Man, pref. xxv. foll.
604 See Ingram, Pres. Condition and Prospects of Pol. Economy, p. 18: ‘By habitually regarding labour from the abstract point of view, and overlooking the personality of the labourer, economists are led to leave out of account some of the considerations which most seriously affect the condition of the working man,’ etc. Cp. Carlyle, Past and Present, the last book.
605 See the chapter with this title in T. E. Brown, Studies in Modern Socialism and Labour Problems, c. xii.
606 See an Article on ‘Christian Union,’ by Earl Nelson, Cont. Rev., Feb. 1889.
607 See Martensen, Ethics (Ind.), § 93. Dean Church, Gifts of Civilization, Serm. II.
608 Mr. Huxley in Nineteenth Century for Nov. 1887.