em by themselves the equivalent
of morality is verbally to cut off the channels of feeling through
which they are the feeders of that wellbeing. They are the original
fountains of a sensibility to the claims of others, which is the bond of
societies; but being necessarily in the first instance a private good,
there is always the danger that individual selfishness will see in them
only the best part of its own gain; just as knowledge, navigation,
commerce, and all the conditions which are of a nature to awaken men's
consciousness of their mutual dependence and to make the world one great
society, are the occasions of selfish, unfair action, of war and
oppression, so long as the public conscience or chief force of feeling
and opinion is not uniform and strong enough in its insistance on what
is demanded by the general welfare. And among the influences that must
retard a right public judgment, the degradation of words which involve
praise and blame will be reckoned worth protesting against by every
mature observer. To rob words of half their meaning, while they retain
their dignity as qualifications, is like allowing to men who have lost
half their faculties the same high and perilous command which they won
in their time of vigour; or like selling food and seeds after
fraudulently abstracting their best virtues: in each case what ought to
be beneficently strong is fatally enfeebled, if not empoisoned. Until we
have altered our dictionaries and have found some other word than
_morality_ to stand in popular use for the duties of man to man, let us
refuse to accept as moral the contractor who enriches himself by using
large machinery to make pasteboard soles pass as leather for the feet of
unhappy conscripts fighting at miserable odds against invaders: let us
rather call him a miscreant, though he were the tenderest, most faithful
of husbands, and contend that his own experience of home happiness makes
his reckless infliction of suffering on others all the more atrocious.
Let us refuse to accept as moral any political leader who should allow
his conduct in relation to great issues to be determined by egoistic
passion, and boldly say that he would be less immoral even though he
were as lax in his personal habits as Sir Robert Walpole, if at the same
time his sense of the public welfare were supreme in his mind, quelling
all pettier impulses beneath a magnanimous impartiality. And though we
were to find among that class of journa