-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a1725f9e4fd74e0d241b794dd91cb9cc.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=GKatFqlZWQ5eFT-7-1Jy38hqlF8k9Uxz9TT%7E1IbIhvGwzsvKh7yNBS5tjBJ1KnBnnFtl3-zck4kozahuMeaw2SJndtVil0gA0nas%7E73mKiP6OpcS7Jy%7EnnQb%7Ef02lDNT1gPyV0wYG40voILjJgSNgmrEpqzT5%7EoUxdJLQdCX7PaAf3qDiFcR4S3Hh7xIp9n3GU7NTT29wbLpxaMLqluLp8KnMQFgdaR7swK6VZwpPsRftAFayvpxA-JXbdACDqFs32blEiK5Z4kNGyNLekzmPeEKrkYwohtHeSFh%7EwKJPEfT4ZAvI6COpXqxcJaxaPBJHwSwujYcKL12Nu9l-p%7EerQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
071ae630a3e83935ad0fcbe07d3dce5a
PDF Text
Text
WHY DO RIGHT?
A SECULARIST’S ANSWER.
BY
CHARLES WATTS
( Vice- President of the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Threepence.
��WHY DO RIGHT?
A
SECULARIST ’S
ANSWER.
Most persons can distinguish between right and wrong;
but it is not so easy to decide why certain actions are right,
and others the very reverse. According to orthodox
Christianity, the sanction for right-doing is a conviction
that our actions should accord with God’s will, and that we
should abstain from the performance of wrong acts through
fear of punishment in some future existence. These are
not the Secular reasons for doing the right thing or
avoiding the wrong. Apart from the difficulty of ascer
taining what the will of God is (for it is nowhere definitely
stated), the value of that will would consist in its nature.
We should ask, Is it just or reasonable to think that
obedience to that will would secure the happiness of the
community ? Is it not a fact that all that can be known of
the supposed will of the Christian God is to be learnt from
the Bible ? But then it should be remembered that the
many representations given of the Divine will in that book
are not only contradictory, but they would, if acted upon,
prove most dangerous to the well-being of society. For
instance, it is there stated that it is God’s will that we
should take no thought for our lives (Matt. vi. 25); that
we should not lay up for ourselves treasures on earth
(Matt. vi. 19); that we should resist not evil (Matt. v. 39);
that we should set our affections on things above, not on
things on the earth (Col. iii. 2); that we should love not
the world (1 John ii. 15); that if we offend in one point of
the law, we are guilty of all (James ii. 10); that we are to
obey not only good, but bad, masters (1 Peter ii. 18); and
that it is good morality to say, “ What, therefore, God hath
joined together, let no man put asunder ” (Matt. xix. 6);
that we should swear not at all (Matt. v. 34); that we
cannot go to Christ except the Father draw us (John vi. 44);
�4
WHY DO RIGHT ?
that we are to labor not for the meat which perisheth
(John vi. 27); that we are to hate our own flesh and blood
(Luke xiv. 26); that those who leave their families for the
“ Gospel’s sake ” shall be rewarded here and hereafter
(Mark x. 29, 30); that men should believe a lie, that they
all might be damned (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12); that the world
cannot be saved by any name except that of Christ
(Acts iv. 12); that salvation should be obtained through
faith, and not of works (Ephes, ii. 8, 9); that the sick are to
rely upon the “ prayer of faith ” to save them (James v. 15);
that if any two Christians agree upon something, and send
a supplication to heaven for that something, it shall be
granted them (Matt, xviii. 19). Now, according to general
experience, if we complied with the will of God, as here
stated, society would not pronounce our actions as right,
but they would be condemned as being hurtful to the
commonwealth.
Secularism is opposed to the orthodox idea that we
should do right through fear of hell. This is the lowest
and most selfish reason for doing good that can be
given. According to the Secular idea, the desire to
do right should not be prompted by merely personal
considerations, but with the object of enhancing the
best interests of others, as well as our own. Besides,
the fear of hell has proved inoperative, either as an
incentive to right action, or as a deterrent to wrong
doing. Even those who profess to be influenced by this
motive have a greater dread of a policeman than of a devil,
and a more vivid conception of a jail than of a hell.
Penalties remote from life do not, by any means, exercise
the same powerful influence upon human conduct as do those
of the present time. The Secular idea of right and wrong
is, that neither is the mere accident of the time, and that
these terms do not represent a condition which is the
result of “ chance
on the contrary, they denote actions
which are the outcome of a law based upon the fitness of
things. The primary truths in morals are as axiomatic as
those in mathematics. Moreover, there is, in the mind of
every properly constituted person, an appreciation of right
and a detestation of wrong. We urge that vice should
be shunned because it is wrong to individuals, and also to
society, to indulge in it; and that virtue should be practised
�a secularist’s answer.
5
because it is the duty of all to assist, both by precept and
example, to elevate the human family. A writer in the
London Echo of August 22 last answers the question why
we should do good apart from theological considerations
in the following pertinent language: Because “certain
actions are followed by more happiness to the actor
than other actions, and because those actions which give
him the most happiness are such as are helpful to
others.
The most highly-developed men have dis
covered this to be true, and the ‘ average ’ man will
ultimately discover it and act on it. Just in proportion as
we become helpful to others we find our own happiness
increasing. And as all our actions inevitably spring from
the desire of our own happiness, it follows that we must go
on becoming more helpful to each other as we develop.
Even those foolish persons who now injure others know
this to a certain extent. Ask a burglar which gives him the
more happiness, to steal or to spend the money he steals
with the woman he lives with ? He will tell you that his
highest happiness is in giving pleasure to his Kate. Ask
Andrew Carnegie which gives him the more pleasure, to cut
his workmen’s wages down or to spend the money in
building a public library ? He will tell you he finds more
pleasure in spending the money for others than in wrench
ing it from his workmen.”
The word “right’’originally meant straightened; hence
the common saying, “putting things to rights,” is understood
as being equivalent to putting them straight or in order.
A writ of right is a legal method of recovering land that
has been wrongfully withheld from its owner, and to right
a ship is to restore it to an upright position. A man
whose acts are deemed good and useful is described as
being “upright ” and “straightforward.” The notion that
legal enactments determine what is morally right and
wrong is as fallacious as the idea that the Bible decides
the question. Many of the laws of our country are based
upon principles the very opposite of what we regard as
morality; while the conflicting teachings of the Bible
disqualify it from being a correct guide in ethical conduct.
It appears to us that, if there are no other standards of right
and wrong but those of the Bible and the law of the land,
then such standards by themselves must be arbitrary,
�WHY DO RIGHT ?
having no universal application to mankind. Possibly some
legal and scriptural commands may be right, but when
they are so it is not because they have the sanction of
Parliament or the Bible, but in consequence of their being
in harmony with the taste and requirements of the public.
That many of the decrees and teachings emanating from
these two sources have been considered wrong is evident
from the fact that men have persistently refused to obey the
one or to accept the other. Take the case of those Free
thinkers, philosophers, and scientists who have so often been
at variance with the Church, and who have refused to obey
certain laws of their country which they deemed wrong.
These men have not only been censured, but sometimes
they have been punished as wrong-doers; and yet,
ultimately, it was proved that they were in the right, and
that the Church and the law were in the wrong. The
standard of the Church and of the law was tradition, custom,
or common belief; the standard of those who were censured
was knowledge. As this knowledge increased the number
of offenders against the stereotyped forms of law, both
human and divine, increased also, until the old foundations
had to yield in favor of those more in harmony with free
dom and justice, and more in accordance with the intellect
of the nation.
By the Secular idea of right we mean that conduct which
is beneficial both to the individual and to the community—
conduct that is in agreement with an enlightened conception
of human duty. It may be admitted that the usefulness of
an act is not always present in the mind of the actor, but it
seems to us impossible to estimate the value of an action
the purpose or result of which is not useful. The real
worth of all actions depends upon the manner in which
they affect our judgment, our feelings, and our general well
being. When we assert that the sense of right-doing exists
in nature, it must not be supposed that we mean it can be
found in a mountain or in the sea; but our meaning is that
it is in that part of nature called human. It is this belief
in the natural basis of right-doing that inspires us with the
endeavor to improve that nature which is the source of all
that is noble. The Secular notion of right and wrong is
based upon reason and experience, which are the surest
guides known to man.
�a secularist’s answer.
7
In considering the question of right and wrong we ought
not to ignore any facts, however unpleasant they may be to
some of us. Human nature has its dark as well as its
bright side. There are men so constituted and so
surrounded by depraved conditions that, from their
actions, one would suppose they prefer doing wrong rather
than right. In many instances men are ferocious, cruel,
and brutal. They practise lying and deception, and injure
and destroy their fellow creatures. Such persons are too
often born in moral corruption and trained in the lowest
form of criminality; they grow up destitute of any selfrespect, and without any sense of right action. People of
this class are the unfortunate victims of a bad environment,
which has contaminated their natures both before and
after birth. If these “ heirs of unrighteousness ” were
spoken to as to the duty they owe to themselves and
to society, probably the replies would be: “As life and
society were thrust upon me, why should I respect either ?
Why should I prefer the straight to the crooked path—the
beautiful in nature to the repulsive ? What advantage is
truth to me when I profit by lying ? Why may I not
repudiate the tyranny involved in the injunction that I
ought to be virtuous ? If I am happy in following my
present course, why should I bother about the effects of my
conduct upon society ?” It will be readily seen that the
man who raises the foregoing questions has no conception of
moral duties and the influence of right action. Moreover,
it is well known that vicious and immoral men are the first
to object to the same kind of conduct which they practise
being directed against themselves. A man may delight in
lying, but no liar likes to be deceived, and no brute in
human form desires to be injured himself. Those who
inflict pain upon others are the first to shudder at the lash
being applied to themselves.
Society itself, notwithstanding the boasted influence of
the Bible and the loud professions of Christianity, has
peculiar ideas of right and wrong. It condemns the killing
of one man as a criminal act; but he who kills thousands is
made a hero. In the one case detestation is evoked, while
in the other honors are bestowed. Hence, the only sense
to which the soldier is amenable is that of duty, not of
right. The public regard his acts as being performed for a
�8
WHY DO RIGHT
1
good purpose—namely, that of destroying those who are
looked upon as enemies. Our forefathers, we are told,
made this island inhabitable by destroying the wild beasts
that once infested it; but it appears to us that a greater
work than that remains to be done, which is to subdue the
wild passions of man. Christianity has failed to accom
plish this desirable result. As the London daily Times
sometime since remarked : “We still seem, after hard upon
nineteen centuries of Christian influence and experience, to
be looking out upon a world in which the ideal of
Christianity, which we all profess to reverence, is wor
shipped only with the lips. . . . Throughout Europe we
find nations armed to the teeth, devoting their main
energies to the perfection of their fighting material and the
victualling of their fighting men, and the keenest of their
intellectual forces to the problem of scientific destruction.
Beneath the surface of society, wherever the pressure
becomes so great as to open an occasional rift, we catch
ominous glimpses of toiling and groaning thousands,
seething in sullen discontent, and yearning after a new
heaven and a new earth, to be realised in a wild frenzy of
anarchy by the overthrow of all existing institutions, and
the letting loose of the fiercest passions of the human
animal.”
Alas! it is too true that the world, for the most part,
has hitherto worshipped force. Poets, from Homer down
wards, have thrilled thousands with graphic descriptions of
scenes of splendor and of glory. Military renown has been
regarded with greater interest than have the triumphs of
ethical culture. Such men as Alexander the Great and
Napoleon have been exalted to the highest pinnacle of
fame, and their deeds have been extolled as if these men
had been the real saviors of the people. This is a mistaken
adulation and an undue exaltation, which is opposed to the
Secular idea of right. What can be more wicked than
devastating and depopulating countries in order that one
warrior may rival another in what is called military glory.
As John Bright said at Birmingham in 1858 : “ I do not
care for military greatness or military renown. I care for
the condition of the people among whom I live. . . .
Crowns, coronets, mitres, military display, the pomp of war,
wide colonies, and a huge empire are, in my view, all trifles,
�A secularist’s answer.
9
light as air, and not worth considering, unless with them
you can have a fair share of comfort, contentment, and
happiness among the great body of the people. Palaces,
baronial castles, great halls, stately mansions, do not make
a nation. The nation in every country dwells in the
cottage.” Right cannot advance if brutal force remains in
the front.
It may be urged that, if our estimate of men in modern
“ Christian England ” be correct, there is but little chance
of establishing any system of right. Happily, although
what we have written is unquestionably true in some cases,
it is not true of all men. There are other members of the
human family who possess dispositions which enable them
to act rightly, so that the world will be the better for the
part they have played in the great drama of life. These
workers for the public good are influenced by higher laws
than Bibles or Parliaments can command or enforce.
According to the Secular view of right, all persons should
be instructed in the duties of citizenship; they should
be impressed with the necessity of taking an active interest
in all things that pertain to the welfare of life, and to
consider political and social rights as well as those that
refer merely to ordinary every-day conduct. Of course, as
civilised beings, we require some centre of appeal, some
test by which we can determine what is right and what is
wrong. However defective our standard may be con
sidered, and however varied the results of an appeal
thereto may prove, we know of no higher authority to do
right than because it accords with the general good of
society. We regard it as utterly futile to go back to
Bible times, when theology was supreme, to find a test by
which modern conduct shall be regulated. Doing right in
those times meant obeying the will of the despot, and com
plying with the wish of the priest. At that period right
had no relation to the requirements and independence of
the individual. In the evolution of human life the chief
business of men is to translate might into righthand to
substitute mental freedom for intellectual subjection.
Under the influence of the Secular idea of right, it will be
found easier to speak the truth than to endeavor to deceive.
Candid and fair dealing will be looked upon as the sovereign
good of human nature; and the acquirement of, and
�10
WHY DO RIGHT ?
adherence to, this commendable habit will be found less
difficult than mastering the technicalities of law, the
reasonings of metaphysicians, or the verbose quibbles of
theologians.
The Secular method of establishing a true conception of
right is to continually augment our experiences with the
acquirement of additional knowledge. Although instances
may be quoted of greater fidelity being found in some of the
lower animals than is perceptible in many men, the power
of foreseeing events in the case of the most intelligent of
“ the brute creation ” is not very strongly marked. The
Secular idea of right is that the best judgment possible
should be exercised upon all occasions for the purpose of
discovering what is most calculated to promote individual
and general happiness. Moralists dilate upon the varying
rules of conduct that obtain in different nations and under
different governments. Now, while it is quite true that
various conflicting ideas of right and wrong exist in
different countries, that fact does not exempt people from
performing the duty of considering, in every case, what is
the right course to adopt to secure the welfare of the
nation in which they live. The principle of improvement
applies to all conditions and to all races of men. Take the
important feature of family life : on this point opinions are
entertained of the most opposite character. In one country
men believe in one god and in having many wives, while
in another country men believe in three gods and having
only one wife. And yet both beliefs are deemed right.
The Secular idea is that we should study what is right for
us to do under the conditions in which we live. In this
country there is no doubt that the development of the
affections, and of a due regard to the rights and enjoyment
of others, points to the conclusion that the union of one
man with one woman is the best solution of the marriage
problem. True, the Bible sanctions polygamy, but with
that we are not now concerned ; monogamy is accepted as
the best matrimonial arrangement for us under present
conditions.
It is supposed by some persons that it is too late to
discover anything new in morality. This, however, is a
mistake, because the acquirements of modern life impose
upon us duties that were unknown to the ancients, and
�A SECULARIST S ANSWER.
11
which require, upon our part, an intelligent apprehension
to enable us to perform them with credit to ourselves and
for the benefit of others. Science and learning are valuable
in proportion as they tend to make better men and
women, and inspire within them a desire to promote
general happiness. The endeavor to advance human
felicity is the best evidence of the existence of a living,
active morality, and of a proper sense of right. Let us,
then,
Rest not ! life is passing by,
Do and dare before you die.
Something mighty and sublime
Leave behind to conquer time.
Glorious ’tis to live for aye
When these forms have passed away.
Why should we be good ? Theologians would have us
believe that the only satisfactory reply to such a query
must come from Christianity. But, as we have already
shown, the Christian’s reasons for being good are both
selfish and ineffectual. We hope to show that there
are better reasons for goodness than the desire to
please God and to secure everlasting happiness in “ realms
beyond.” The theological delusion, that religion alone
supplies the motive for personal excellence, has arisen
through people entertaining the erroneous idea that
natural means are impotent to cure the evils that dominate
society. It has, however, been discovered that vice must
be dealt with like all else that is human. A supernatural
remedy for moral disease appears to the student of nature
no more reasonable than a supernatural cure for any of
the physical diseases which “flesh is heir to.” When a
man feels the pangs of some physical malady, he knows
that there is some derangement in the organ in which it
occurs ; in addition to applying a remedy, if he be wise, he
will endeavor to discover the cause, so as to avoid the
malady in future. Now, Secularists consider that the
same course should be taken with moral diseases, which
often arise from a morbid condition of the brain, produced
sometimes by the bad arrangements of society, or through
not acting up to the proper duties of life. Virtue and vice
are not mere accidents of the time, but are as much the con
sequence of the operation of natural laws as the falling of
�12
WHY DO RIGHT ?
a stone or the growth of a flower. The causes of crime
should be investigated as carefully as the causes of cholera
and other epidemics have been. The physical and the
moral are more closely connected than is generally sup
posed, and the influence of the one upon the other is
beyond all doubt very great. Man’s mental and moral
natures both depend upon material organs, and are there
fore influenced by physical forces; and it is not unusual for
the same causes that generate disease to produce crime.
So little, however, do people study the relation of mind to
brain that vice prevails where, with a little judicious
thought and action, virtue might be found. The Secularist
acknowledges these important facts, and, expecting no
supernatural help, he goes earnestly to work himself.
Holding that whatever happens occurs in accordance with
some law, he deems it his business to endeavor to ascertain
what that law is, that he may turn it to some practical
account.
We think that with the extensive knowledge which now
exists, allied with intellectual culture, it is not difficult to
demonstrate that man ought to do his duty for reasons
which belong alone to this life. By the word “duty” we
here mean an obligation to perform actions that have a
tendency to promote the personal and general welfare of
the community. This obligation is imposed upon us by
the requirements of society. For instance, the Secular
obligation to speak the truth is obtained from experience,
which teaches that lying and deceit tend to destroy that
confidence between man and man which has been found to
be necessary to maintain the stability of mutual societarian
intercourse.
Again, our obligation to live good lives is derived from
the fact that, as we are here and are recipients of certain
advantages from society, we therefore deem it a duty to
repay, by life service, the benefits thus received. To avoid
this obligation, either by self-destruction or by any other
means, except we are driven to such a course by what
have been termed “irresistible forces,’’would be, in our
opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable. As to the word
“ought,” the only explanation orthodox Christianity gives
to this term is a thoroughly selfish one. It says you
“ ought ” to do so and so for “ Christ’s sake,” that through
�A
secularist’s answer.
13
him you may avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand,
Secularism finds the meaning of “ ought ” in the very
nature of things, as involving duty, and implying that
something is due to others. As the Rev. Minot J. Savage,
in his Morals of Evolution, aptly puts it: “ Man ought—
what ?—ought to fulfil the highest possibility of his being;
ought to be a man; ought to be all and the highest that
being a man implies. Why ? That is his nature. He
ought to fulfil the highest possibilities of his being; ought
not simply to be an animal. Why ? Because there is
something in him more than an animal. He ought not
simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he
ought to be that. Why ? Because that does not exhaust
the possibilities of his nature : he is capable of being some
thing more, something higher than a brain. We say he
ought to be a moral being. Why ? Because it is living
out his nature to be a moral being. He ought to live as
high, grand, and complete a life as it is possible for him to
live, and he ought to stand in such relation to his fellow
men that he shall aid them in doing the same. Why ?
Just the same as in all these other cases : because this, and
this only, is developing the full and complete stature of a
man, and he is not a man in the highest, truest, deepest
sense of the word until he is that and does that; he is
only a fragment of a man so long as he is less and lower.”
The careful and impartial student of nature will discover
that therein continuous law is to be found, but no accidents
or contingencies. And what we call the moral state is one
wherein man is enabled to recognise the wisdom of com
pliance with this law. It is quite true that men may refuse
to obey the moral law, but, if they do, they must suffer in
consequence. This is one reason why men should be good,
inasmuch as the fact of being so brings its own reward. It
not only secures immunity from suffering, and adds to the
health fulness of society, but it exalts those who obey the
moral law in the estimation of the real noblemen of nature.
A man of honor—one whose word is his bond, who practises
virtue in his daily life—wins the respect and confidence of
all who know him, and he thereby sets an example that will
be useful to emulate; and he at the same time acquires for
himself a tranquility of mind known only to the consistent
devotee of human goodness. What is called Christian
�14
WHY DO RIGHT ?
morality has no sanction in merely natural sentiments and
associations. Nobility of action is supposed by orthodox
believers to be the result of a “ fire kindled in the soul by
the Holy Ghost.” St. Paul is reported to have entertained
the grovelling notion that, if this life is “ the be-all and
end-all,” then “we are of all men the most miserable”;
“ therefore,” says he, “ let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die.” Here the problematical happiness in a problematical
future is put forth as a higher incentive to goodness than
the wish to so regulate our conduct that it will produce
certain beneficial results in our present existence. Persons
who share the views of St. Paul, as set forth in 1 Cor. xv.,
will derive but little pleasure from the virtue of this world.
The satisfaction which should be felt in benefiting mankind
independently of theology falls unheeded on orthodox
believers. They fail to experience happiness simply by the
performance of good works. Virtue, to them, has no charms
if not prompted by the “ love of God.” Nobility, heroism
generosity, devotion, are all ignored unless stimulated by
the hope of future bliss. Christians deny the possibility of
virtue receiving its full reward on earth. If they think
their faith will conduct them safely to the “ next world,”
they appear to have no trouble about its effects in this. A
man who is good only because he is commanded to be so, or
through fear of punishment after death, is not in touch with
the philosophy of modern ethics. The true moral person
is one who does his duty, regardless of personal reward or
punishment in any other world. The Secular motive for
being good is that this world shall be the better for the
lives we have led, and for the deeds we have performed.
Regard for the moral law is not based upon a nega
tion, neither is it a mere question of expediency, but
rather a positive acting principle, working for practical
goodness. A really moral man is one who is interested in
the well-being of others—one who has discovered that he
belongs to the family of men, the social advancement of
which is dependent, more or less, upon each other. Unsocial
beings are those who care for nobody but themselves, and
whose sense of right-doing consists in studying their own
interests without concerning themselves about the welfare
of others. Emerson said : “ I once knew a philosopher of
this kidney. His theory was, ‘ Mankind is a damned rascal.
�a secularist’s answer.
15
All the world lives by humbug; so will I.’ ” Fortunately,
individuals of this type are becoming fewer and fewer, and
are being replaced by men and women in whom are to be
found aspirations for the true, the useful, and the elevating
functions of life. To such members of the human family
as these it can be made evident that truth and honor are
essential to their well-being, and that doing good is an
absolute necessity to the formation and the perpetuation of
a society based on confidence and trust. The virtue of
veracity is the foundation of the true social fabric. Law,
commerce, friendship, and all the embellishments of life rest
upon the great principle of veracity. It is this which gives
the surest stability to all moral obligation. While being
faithful to ourselves, we should never fail to manifest fidelity
in our associations with all members of the community.
Our aim ought always to be to so serve others that we may
help ourselves, and to so serve ourselves as to be helpful to
others. As Pope puts it :•—“ Self-love and social is the same.”
Emerson has said : “The mind of this age has fallen away
from theology to morals. I conceive it to be an advance.”
Undoubtedly this is true, for the intellect of the age is
more than ever finding its justification for being good in
the results of action, rather than in the commands of
creeds and dogmas. The inspiration to goodness is now
recognised as coming from earth, not heaven; from man,
not God. As a recent writer well puts the fact: “ It is
not a belief in an arbitrary personal God which ennobles a
life. Most of the burglars and murderers, most of the
unjust monopolists and cruel sweaters, believe in ‘God.’
It is goodness that ennobles a life, and goodness is not
necessarily associated with godliness. It is not a hope of
heaven that makes a life beautiful. Many who believe in
heaven are very hard to live with here. It is gentleness,
kindness, considerateness, friendliness, love, that make a
life beautiful; and these qualities are not necessarily
associated with a hope of heaven. It is not piety that
wins esteem. There are many pious persons whom you
would not trust with a five pound note. It is fair dealing,
honesty, and fidelity that win esteem; and they are not
associated with piety.”
�16
WHY DO RIGHT ?
Darwin, in his Descent of Man, gives potent reasons why
we should live good lives. He points out that the
possession of moral qualities is a great aid in the struggle
for existence; that people with strong moral feelings are
more likely to win in the race of life than persons who are
destitute of such feelings. Goodness has in itself its own
recommendation, inasmuch as it secures for its recipients
peace of mind, temperance in their habits, and a sense of
justice in their dealings with others. Men of honor, whose
lives are regulated by the principle of integrity, furnish the
best of all reasons for being good. They are happy in the
consciousness of the nobility of their own nature, and they
derive consolation from the knowledge that they render
valuable service to others by the dignified example they
set, and the exalted lives they live. Those who can see
the worth of virtue and of truth in human character are
embued with a spirit of emulation; they desire to be
associated with a superior order of society. Such members
of the community can readily see that without “ confidence
and trust” the commercial world would collapse. The
same principle applies to the whole of human life, for it is
not simply that “ honesty is the best policy,” but that it is
the only policy which will secure a tranquil state of
existence. Rectitude is the source of self-reliance in life
and at death. Men who are able to distinguish the good
from the bad are attracted by honor and refinement.
They shun malignity and vulgarity, and are repelled by
what is vicious and demoralising. Men should be good
because goodness qualifies them for friendship, and wins
for them the esteem of the best of their kind. Further, it
awakens within them a sense of what is most fitted to
enable them to adopt an elevated mode of living. They
become practical believers in that which is just and useful,
and they are thereby inspired to strive to realise their
ideal born of newer and higher perceptions of truth. Let
the lover of goodness once be admitted into the presence of
the intellectually gifted and morally heroic, and life will
present to him a new aspect. When we read of Plutarch’s
heroes; of Greece with her art and her literature; of Rome
with her Cicero and her Antoninus ; and of the muster-roll
of men and women whose memories are surrounded with a
halo of intellectual brilliancy and ethical glory, we no
�A SECULARISTS ANSWER.
17
longer regard the world as the habitation only of moral
invalids and of mental imbeciles. On the contrary, a
higher faith in the potency and grandeur of human good
ness is evoked, exalted thoughts are inspired within us,
and we are induced to believe that goodness will be more
than ever appreciated for its own sake, and that virtue
will be honored and revered for its intrinsic merits.
While admitting that the moral brightness of life is some
what tarnished by the base, the brutal, the suicidal, and
the insane characters that are still found in our midst, we
believe in the law of progress and the work of reform.
We recognise a powerful motive for being good in the belief
that such conditions may be produced that shall tend to
remove depravity and to establish righteousness. Such
disasters as the cholera, and numerous other epidemics that
once made uncontrolled havoc upon society, have been
checked by the application of suitable scientific remedies;
why, then, should not moral evils be made to yield to
judicious treatment ? When men understand that moral
law is as certain as physical law, and as necessary to be
obeyed if we are to have a healthy state in human ethics,
the reformation of the community will be capable of
achievement. Whether we regard man as the creature or
the creator of circumstances, or as both, it is certain that
his organism and its environment act and re-act upon each
other. While intelligence indicates the best way to pursue
in life, it is obvious that circumstances must be such as to
permit of our pursuing that way. From what we know of
human nature, it appears to us necessary that it should be
surrounded with inducements that have the power to draw
out the best that is in it. It has been well said that man
is a bundle of habits ; therefore moral forces become strong
as they become a part of the habit of life. We cannot
reasonably expect the State to be ruled by right and love
unless these virtues exist in the citizens. No nation has
ever attempted to live like a society of friends—without
gaols, policemen, etc.—because the idea of moral duty has
been only partially realised. In proportion as we properly
understand the nature of goodness, and regulate our lives
by its genius, so shall we be governed by ideas instead of
by force. The misfortune of our present societarian condition
is the difficulty attending its improvement. Although, like
�18
WHY DO RIGHT ?
trees, we grow and expand from within, there seems, as it
were, an iron band around us, that prevents our free expan
sion and our full growth. The quality of our acts may be
good in a certain degree, but it is not of the required
strength. The quality has been impoverished through
neglect and theological adulteration; and what is now
required is persistent and intelligent conduct, that shall
purify life, and rid it of the legacy of the ignorance, the
folly, and the superstition of the dark past. Our hope is
in purification ; we want earnestness and candor to take the
•place of the apathy and hypocrisy which have so long held
sway. Then real goodness will illuminate the hearts of
men, and virtue will shed its lustre upon the emancipated
humanity of the world.
Why should we be good 1 The answer, from a Secular
standpoint, is : Because goodness, in itself, is the basis of all
true happiness; it is the progenitor of peace, order, and
progress. To be good is a duty we owe to society as well
as to- ourselves. In virtue alone are to be found those
elements that ennoble character and exalt a nation. . The
unselfish love of goodness, and the desire to acquire a
practical knowledge of the obligations of life, have hitherto
been too much confined to the few, while the many have
neglected to strive to realise the highest advantages of
existence. The cause of this misfortune is not difficult to
discover. It is apparent in the radical evil underlying the
whole of the theological creeds of Christendom—namely,
an objection to concentrate attention on the present life,
apart from considerations of any existence “ hereafter.”
The mistake in the theological world is that its members
regulate their conduct and control their actions almost
exclusively by the records of the past or the conjectures of
a future. Their rules of morality, their systems of theology,
and their modes of thought are too much a reflex of an
imperfect antiquity. Those who cannot derive sufficient
inspiration from this source fly into the fancied boun
daries of another world—a world which is enveloped
in obscurity, and upon which experience can throw no light.
History has been subverted by this theological error from
its proper purpose. Instead of beihg the interpreter of
ages, it has become the dictator of nations ; instead of being
a guide to the future, it is really the master of the present.
�A secularist’s
answer.
19
The proceedings of bygone times are thus made the standard
of appeal in these. The wisdom of the first century is
regarded as the infallible rule of the nineteenth. The
watchword of the Church is “As you were,” rather than
“As you are.” Christian theology hesitates to recognise
active progressive principles, but holds that faith was stereo
typed eighteen hundred years ago, and that all subsequent
actions and duties must be shaped in its mould. Secularism
prefers the healthy and progressive sentiments thus ex
pressed by J. R. Lowell:—
New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth ;
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.
Orthodox Christianity appeals to the desires and fears
of mankind. It is presented to the world under the two
aspects of hope and dread. Some persons regard it as a
system of love, offering them a pleasant future, stimulating
within. them hopes delightful to indulge, and supplying
their imagination with splendors enchanting to con
template. On the other hand, many reject Christianity
because it contains gloomy forebodings, presenting to them
a being who is represented as constantly sowing the seeds
of discord and unhappiness among society, who has nothing
but frowns for the smiles of life, and whose chief business
it is to crush and awe the minds of men with fear and
apprehension. If Christianity furnishes its believers with
hopes of heaven to buoy them up, it also gives them the
dread of hell to cast them down. The one is as certain as
the other. As soon as a child begins to lisp at its mother’s
knee, its young mind is impressed with the notion that
there is “ a Heaven to gain, and a Hell to avoid.” As the
child grows to maturity, this notion is strengthened by
false education and religious discipline, until at last the
opinion is formed which frequently culminates in making
the victim an abject slave to a fancy-created heaven and an
inhumanly-pictured hell. Christians sometimes assert that
to deprive them of their hope in heaven would be to rob
them of their principal consolation. If this be correct,
so much the worse for their faith. Better have no con
solation than to derive it from a creed which condemns to
eternal perdition the great majority of the human kind.
�20
WHY DO RIGHT ?
The true object of rewards and punishments should be
to encourage virtue and to deter vice. Most, if not all, of
the religions of the world have employed these agencies in
the promulgation of their tenets, not, however, as a rule,
in the correct form. Theologians have connected their
systems of rewards and punishments with the profession
of arbitrary creeds and dogmas that have little or no
bearing on the promotion of virtue or the prevention of
vice. The final reward offered by Christianity is made
dependent on beliefs more than on actions. This is unjust,
inasmuch as many persons are unable to accept the belief
that is supposed to secure the reward. Moreover, accord
ing to the Christian system, the same kind of encourage
ment is held out to the criminal who, after a life of crime,
repents and acknowledges his faith in Christ, as to the
philanthropist whose career has been one of excellence and
goodness.
Equally defective and objectionable is the system of
punishment as taught by Christians, making, as it does,
correction to proceed from a motive of revenge rather than
from a desire to reform. Through life we should never
cherish revenge, nor harbor malice. To forgive is a virtue
all should endeavor to practise. Governments who desire
to win national confidence do not seek to make the chief
feature of their punitive laws of a retaliative spirit; they
aim rather to enact measures that tend to the reformation
of the criminal. Now, the drawback to the threatened
punishment of Christianity is, that it offers no incentive to
reformation, for, when once in hell, the victim must for
ever remain, and there no opportunity is afforded for
improvement, and no facility offered for repentance. It
cannot be said that the sufferings of those in the bottomless
pit exercise any beneficial influence upon those on earth,
inasmuch as we cannot witness their torture, and, if we
could, instead of inspiring within us love and obedience,
doubtless it would excite detestation towards the being
who, possessing the power, refused to exercise it to prevent
mankind enduring such barbarous cruelty. The rejected
of heaven are here represented as being the victims of
unutterable anguish; as having to endure tortures which
no mind can fully conceive, no pen can adequately
portray.
�j.
A SECULARIST S ANSWER.
21
This Christian doctrine of punishment is based upon a
principle opposed to all good government. It allows no
grades in virtue or vice. It divides the world into two
classes—the sheep and the goats, leaving no intermediate
course. Now, mankind are not either all good or all bad;
there are degrees of innocence and guilt in each. Horace
recognised this ; hence he said :—
Let rules be fixed that may our rage contain,
And punish faults with a proportioned pain.
Punishment is valuable- only so far as it tends to the
reformation and the protection of society. It has been
shown that hell fire must fail in the former, and experience
proves that it is cpiite as impotent for the latter. Our law
courts are constantly revealing the fact that those who
profess the strongest faith in future retribution have
frequently been remarkable for savage brutality and
uncontrolled cruelty.
If it be asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adhe
rents as being superior to theological and other speculative
theories of the day ? the answer is, (1) Because Secularists
believe its moral basis to be more definite and practical
than other existing ethical codes; and (2) because Secular
teachingsappear to them to be more reasonable and of greater
advantage to general society than the various theologies of
the world, and that of orthodox Christianity in particular.
That Secular teachings are superior to those of orthodox
Christianity the following brief contrast will show.
Christian conduct is controlled by the ancient, and
supposed infallible, rules of the Bible; Secular action is
regulated by modern requirements and the scientific and
philosophical discoveries of the practical age in which we
live. Christianity enjoins as an essential duty of life to
prepare to die ; Secularism says, learn how to live truth
fully, honestly, and usefully, and you need not concern
yourself with the “how” to die. Christianity proclaims
that the world’s redemption can be achieved only through
the teachings of one person ; Secularism avows that such
teachings are too impracticable and limited in their
influence for the attainment of the object claimed, and that
improvement, general and individual, is the result of the
brain power and physical exertions of the brave toilers of
�22
WHY DO RIGHT ?
every country and every age who have labored for human
advancement.
Christianity threatens punishment in
another world for the rejection of speculative views in
this; Secularism teaches that no penalty should follow the
holding of sincere opinions, as uniformity of belief is
impossible. According to Christianity, as taught in the
churches and chapels, the approval of God and the rewards
of heaven are to be secured only through faith in Jesus of
Nazareth; whereas the philosophy of Secularism enunciates
that no merit should be attached to such faith, but that
fidelity to principle and good service to man should win the
right to participate in any advantages either in this or any
other world.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives
little or no assistance from orthodox Christianity. Not
withstanding the fact that Broad Churchism or Latitudinarianism has begun to make some concessions to reason and
scientific progress, and however strongly apparent may be
the desire for compromise on the part of the theologians,
there are still many of the most distinctive doctrines of
orthodoxy which are most decidedly opposed to the
standard of modern ethics and influence. Such, for example,
is the doctrine of vicarious atonement, where paternal
affection is ignored, and where the innocent is made to
suffer for the guilty; that right faith is superior to right
conduct apart from such belief ; and, most especially, that
unjust and equity-defying dogma of eternal condemnation.
It is really beyond the scope of such a system as the
orthodox one to promote the moral development of
humanity. This can only be effectually done by the
action of those social, political, and intellectual forces to
which we are indebted, as it were, for the building up of
man from the very first institution of society. These have
been, are, and ever must be, the moral edifiers of the human
race. Without them true progress is impossible, since it is
by them that we are what we are. It is: (1) the social
activities that have led to the formation, maintenance, and
improvement of human society; (2) the political activities
that have led to the formation, maintenance, and improve
ment of the general government, to the establishment of
States or nations, and to the recognition of the mutual
rights and duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual
�A secularist’s answer.
23
activities that have led to the interchange of human
thoughts, to the formation of literature, to the pursuits of
science and art, to the banishment of ignorance and the
decay of superstition, to the diffusion of knowledge, and,
finally, to all mental progress.
It is said that, without a fixed rule for conduct, all
guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not so; Secularism
recognises a safe and never-erring basis for moral action,
which is taken, not from Revelation, but from the Roman
law of the Twelve Tables, which laid down the broad
general maxim that “ the well-being of the people is the
supreme law.” This may be taken as a fundamental
principle for all time and all nations. The kind of action
which will produce such well-being depends, of course,
upon individual and national circumstances, varied in their
character and diversified in their influence. This
progressive morality is the principle of the Utilitarian
ethics which now govern the civilised world. It is not
merely the individual, but society at large, that is con
sidered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian
existence may be compared to a beehive. What does the
apiarian discover in his studies ? Not that every individual
bee labors only for individual necessities. No ; but that all
is subordinated to the general welfare of the hive. If the
drones increase, they are expelled or restricted, and well
would it be for our human society if all drones who
resisted improvement were banished from among us. In
the moral world, as in religious societies, there are too
many Nothingarians—individuals who thrive through the
good conduct of others, while they themselves do nothing
to contribute to the store of the ethical hive. The
morality of men, their love, their benevolence, their
kindly charity, their mutual tolerance and long-suffering—
all these spring directly from their long-acquired and
developed experience. As the poet of Buddhism sings :—
Pray not, the Darkness will not brighten ! ask
Nought from the Silence, for it cannot speak !
Vex not your mournful minds with pious pains :—
Ah, brothers, sisters ! seek
Nought from the helpless gods by gift and hymn,
Nor bribe with blood, nor feed with fruit and cakes ;
Within yourselves deliverance must be sought;
Each man his prison makes '
�CHARLES WATTS’S WORKS.
The Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox
Christianity, is., by post is. 2d.
Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence. 4<d-, by
post 5d.
Secularism: Destructive and Constructive. 3d-> by post 4d.
The Glory of Unbelief. 3d., by post 4d.
Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is the More
Reasonable? 3d-, by post 4d.
A Reply to Father Lambert’s “Tactics of Infidels.” 6d.,
by post 7d.
Theological Presumption.
R. F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
An Open Letter to the Rev. Dr.
2d., by post 2j^d.
The Natural and the Supernatural; or, Belief and Know
ledge. 3d., by post 4d.
Evolution and Special Creation. ContentsWhat is Evolu
tion ?—The Formation of Worlds—The Beginning of Life upon the
Earth—Origin of Man—Diversity of Living Things—Psychical
Powers—The Future of Man on Earth. 3d., by post 3%d.
Happiness in Hell and Misery in Heaven. 3d-, by post 3%d.
Science and the Bible. 4d-, by post 5d.
Bible Morality: Its Teachings Shown to be Contradictory and
Defective as an Ethical Guide. 3d., by post 3j^d.
Secularism: Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient
to Meet the Wants of Mankind ? Debate between the Editor
of the Evening AZh/Z (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts. With
Prefatory Letters by G. J. Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll,
and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener, is., by post is. 2d.
Secularism: its Relation to the Social Problems of the Day.
2d., by post 2%d.
Is there a Life Beyond the Grave ? 3d-, by post 3%d.
Education: True and False. (Dedicated to the London School
Board.)
2d., by post 2j^d.
Christianity and Civilisation: Why Christianity is Still
Professed. 3d., by post 3^d.
Saints and Sinners: Which? 3d., by post 4d.
The Horrors of the French Revolution. 3d., by post 4d.
The Existence of God; or, Questions for Theists. 2d., by
post 2%d.
Secularism: Its Relation to the Social Problems of the Day.
2d., by post 2j^d.
Miscellaneous Pamphlets.
232 pp., in neat binding, 2S., by
post 2S. 3d.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why do right? a secularist's answer
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Why</span> <span class="highlight">do</span> <span class="highlight">right</span>? a secularist's answer), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N680
RA1576
RA767
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Secularism