no moral law. Germany has boldly
accepted this position, and declares formally that, for the State,
Might is Right, and that all which the State can do for its own
aggrandisement, for the increase of its power, it may and ought to do,
for there is no rule of conduct to which it owes obedience; it is a law
unto itself. Other nations have not formularised the statement in their
literature as Germany has done, but the strong nations have acted upon
it in their dealings with the weaker nations, although the dawning
sense of an international morality in the better of them has led to
the defence of international wrong by "the tyrant's plea, necessity".
The most flagrant instance of the utter disregard of right and wrong as
between nations, is, perhaps, the action of the allied European nations
against China--in which the Hun theory of "frightfulness" was enunciated
by the German Kaiser--but the history of nations so far is a history of
continual tramplings on the weak by the strong, and with the coming to
the front of the Christian white nations, and their growth in scientific
knowledge and thereby in power, the coloured nations and tribes, whether
civilised or savage, have been continually exploited and oppressed.
International morality, at present, does not exist. Murder within the
family, the tribe, and the nation is marked as a crime, save that
judicial murder, capital punishment, is permitted--on the principle of
(supposed) Utility. But multiple murder outside the nation--War--is not
regarded as criminal, nor is theft "wrong," when committed by a strong
nation on a weak one. It may be that out of the widespread misery caused
by the present War, some international morality may be developed.
We may admit that, as a matter of historical and present fact, Utility
has been everywhere tacitly accepted as the basis of morality, defective
as it is as a theory. Utility is used as the test of Revelation, as the
test of Intuition, and precepts of Manu, Zarathushtra, Moses, Christ,
Muhammad, are acted on, or disregarded, according as they are considered
to be useful, or harmful, or impracticable, to be suitable or unsuitable
to the times. Inconsistencies in these matters do not trouble the
"practical" ordinary man.
The chief attack on the theory of Utility as a basis for morality has
come from Christians, and has been effected by challenging the word
"happiness" as the equivalent of "pleasure," the "greatest number" as
equivalen
|