T h e
B u s i n e s s
529
September 1928
K i n g ’ s .
The Old Morality and the New B y R ev . J. M, M c C laren , B.A. Saltcoats, Sask., Can.
T is to this question that we more particularly address ourselves, viz.— What is the substantial character o f what is freely spoken of as the “ new decalogue and the new morality” ?. Take this senJ tence for i n s t a n c e “ For many of our young people the old morality has very nearly, if not entirely, gone.” (Editorial in the Canadian Journal o f Religious Thought for March and April, 1928). No such statement could seriously be made in a journal purporting to be an exponent of current religious thought as well as ethical principles without some trend o f present-day life justifying it. The exponents of this new trend of life are called “ radical psychologists” ; and these, aided by the cinema and the modern novel, we are told, have done it. That is, these forces, conjointly, are redrafting and re writing our moral code, so that in a short time, forsooth, Sinai’s tables will grace a corner o f our museums. What is the real substance of all this?. Is this,kind of thing to go unchallenged? Not, indeed, that it should be challenged in the name of anything fossiliferous, but in' the name of what has been revealed from a source other than evolved human nature? If all our ethical system has been derived only as an accretion from millenniums o f human conflict in which fleshly lust, rapacious greed and animosity have been the prominent shadows in the color scheme o f life, then let us wipe off the slate at once and begin all over again with our present knowledge. We might, indeed, hope to arrive at fair results if w e ' could believe that the same old shadows would not disturb the effort. But are they not all with us yet? What about avaricious greed? Is it not with us more entrenched than evpr ? Shall we shape our new system to give it sanction ? What about fleshly lust? Who reads history intelligently but knows that unrestrained facilities for its gratification will plunge any nation in rottenness and decay ? What about animosities ? Does this powder-smelling spirit still dwell among the nations ? Out of what material are we going to construct our new decalogue or our new morality ? All that presents itself here as an outcome of much that is said and written is more unlimited freedom between the sexes. Will this, however, constitute a perfection or a refinement? Will it be a fine stroke of improvement on' the ethical code as it no\vr stands ? The decalogue of Sinaitic sanction, is, we may say, without reasonable question, a- standard of general prin ciples from which a body of jurisprudence has arisen for the guidance of the affairs.of an organized state, particu larly' in the administration of justice. Now it is a ques tion as to whether any further general principle can be added to that exceptional deliverance, regarded either as divinely given or simply the product of Mosaic genius or statesmanship. Can every detail of legal enactment be worked out from these general principles? Are all ele ments of our moral code but modifications and limitations of the Ten Commandments as they stand? If so, and if no other general principle can be discovered that could reasonably constitute an eleventh commandment, out of what material are we going to construct a new decalogue? On page 93 of the March-April issue of the Canadian Journal o f Religious Thought (Article: “ The Modern
Mind and Modernism” by Professor G. S.' Brett of T o ronto University) the statement is made: “ The new deca logue includes the commandment that forbids us to be out of date. Worded in form o f commandment it would stand thus— Thou shalt not be out of date.” The weakness of the statement is at once apparent. No one could speak o f it as a general principle worthy o f an equal place with the stately negations of the Sinaitic decalogue. It is in fact, a limitation, a special application of love to one’s neighbor; that is, it is Our duty to rise to as high a degree as possible in mental and moral attainment, that all our contacts with our fellow men would mean a contribution to their well being. It, nevertheless, belongs to the jots and tittles of ethical observance. If it is out of this material that a new decalogue is to be framed to meet the needs of a restless age, then what is to save us from the interminable regulations of a Buddhist or Confucian philosophy of morals? Think of the pon derous character of a decalogue constructed on the basis of jots and tittles! This new decalogue would have become as intricate and clumsy as the massive volumes o f legal jurisprudence that grace the shelves of a modern law office. Each individual would require a special edition to meet his peculiar notions and conditions, and if general principles are lost sight of in the midst of a multitude o f trivial pronouncements, such as the one quoted above, the .consequent confusion and conflict would soon threaten to rock the whole foundation of the social order. I f economic.'conditions have sometimes called for a “ back to the land” slogan, so we are inclined to think that a “ back to the law” slogaii would not1be amiss in the heart o f many of the vagaries;that are engaging the modern mind. The “ New Age” that is now being spoken about, and even represented in magazine form, may, indeed, be new from the standpoint of inventive genius, finding expres sion in the field of electricity, aeronautics, woman’s rights, therapeutics! forestry conservation, and in numerous other ways; but it is a very different thing to say that it is a new age from the standpoint of general principles of morality. This is the line that furnishes us with a lot of rather start ling material. It seems as if the genuine background of a good deal that passes current under the captions of “ New Age,” “ New Decalogue,” “ New Morality,” is an endeavor to frame up a moral sentiment that will justify “ Trial Marriage,” : “ Companionate Marriage,” “ Promiscuity” and all the other catch terms associated with what is regarded as the new sex problem; a problem that is considered as thrown on the world as a collateral development o f the Great War. In other words, ring in the moral code o f the Samoan Islands. What one of the general principles o f the Ten Com mandments can be considered as antiquated? Thou shalt not kill? N o! Thou shalt not steal? N o ! Thou shalt not commit adultery? No? Although a loose age in some quarters might favor its being destroyed. Thou .shalt not covet? .No! Thou shalt not bear false witness? N o! Coming to the first part, Thou shalt have no other gods before me? N o ! Thou shalt not make a graven image to
Made with FlippingBook Annual report