6
UNIVERSITY COURIER.
ABSOLUTE RIGHT.
At a recent meeting of the present senior class for recitation in Esthetics, an expression of opinion was taken, as to whether there is such a thing as "absolute right." A majority of one decided in the negative. The writer thought with the minority. I am sure I painfully realize the difficulty of the task before me, in endeaving to make clear the reasons for holding to the affirmative of the question. It seems almost foolishly absurd to attempt so complicated a discussion—one upon which ponderous volumes could easily be written—in one short article in a college paper. To steer clear of the many related and truly inseparable side issues, I cannot hope to be able to do. I trust merely to be able to state the foundations upon which the belief in absolute right rests, without fully elaborating any.
Let us know where we stand. First, What is "right?" and second, What is "absolute?" Various metaphysical definitions might easily be formed for both of these terms. In the common acceptance of the word right, and as here used, it means simply, fit, proper, just, according with truth and duty. I know that as the definition now stands, absolute truth is necessarily involved, and it may be objected that there is no absolute standard of truth, and, therefore, this part of our definition will not be admitted here, for as Bain says, "The truth is not to be spoken at all times. Mankind have ever considered it right to deceive each other in times of war, and there have been nations where deception was cultivated as a virtue." Granted. Does this prove that those nations were really better off because they lied, cheated and deceived? Is it proven, that had they reached a state so high that they would have scorned to do these things, they would have been no happier than they were then? Because falsehood sometimes wears angelic robes, does that prove the invalidity of truth? We see no reason for changing our first definition. Now for the meaning of absolute. Here as in the former case we are bountifully supplied with meanings. We choose the following; Perfect, complete, certain, unconditioned.
"So absolute she seemed, as in herself complete."
Opposed to this idea is that which holds all right as relative. I cannot separate this doctrine from that of Chryssippus, a philosopher who wrote about two hundred years before Christ, and belonged to the school of stoics. He said: "The wise man is free in his chains; he may, under certain circumstances, commit murder, deceive, or kill himself, and at the same time be a virtuous character." I know it is easy to see how this might possibly be. But the highest philosophy should look forward to a more perfect moral and intellectual development, one where murder and deception cannot be justified.
I am not discussing the negative phase. If we can find one thing, of whatever nature, which in its majestations are always right, absolutely right, then we think it will be granted that there is some reason for holding the position we maintain.
By induction the geologist proves from the traces on the present earth surface of erosion, that water and ice have been at work; he concludes by the same process that Dinosaurs, Pterodactyls, &c., have been here. If he meet a rill, he infers a fountain head.
So too, I think, may the mental philosopher, seeing the emanations of mind, infer an intelligent primary source; feeling moral obligation may infer a first principle of right and wrong. Or as Kant would say: "The world does not rule the mind,
but mind the world. If there is a moral law there must be a moral world, and in that world the highest good must be brought about." So too, if there is any truth, there must be a fountain of truth. If there is any right, there must be the germ, so to speak, from which the idea of right reaches us by—shall I say it?—Intuitions! This causes a smile, I know, among those thinkers who suppose all our notions of right come primarily from experience. If it can be proved that all knowledge comes by experience, or inheritance from our ancestors, I give up, that there is no such thing as absolute right. Is man less fortunate than the lower animals, which perform many wonderful feats without any past experience or observation, solely by instinct? This is seen ranging from the starfish to man. The butterfly provides carefully for its young which it is never to see; the insect selects its food; monkeys avoid poisonous berries; squirrels store food for winter; bees, wasps and spiders build with wonderful precision, and the old do not excel the young. Did these things all come about under the influence of a law, not guided and framed by intelligence? To draw the line between instinct and intelligence is a task which has never been completed. We cannot force ourselves to conclude that they do not spring from the same "One in All." If insects and lower animals have instincts, which is everywhere admitted, may not man have intuitions from the same source?
True intelligence is the foundation of true philosophy. The highest principle of philosophy, as applied to mankind, is the principle of love. This, we believe exists in its fullness and perfection only in the "One in All," who is the infinite mind, of which we are but inferior manifestations.
Love, wisely directed (for when not guided by intelligence there is no love), is always right, and absolute in its rightness.
What is there in man's nature to teach him that polygamy is wrong, if it be not his conscience? What first induced ancient nations to abandon the practice? Was it experience? What induces the mother, in one case to tenderly foster her child, and in the other cast it to the monsters of the Ganges? Is it experience or love? 'Tis the same motive in both cases, only in the latter, 'tis strangely misguided.
Of course we cannot go beyond the beginning. The first cause cannot be investigated nor analyzed. The manifestations of design, the feeling of obligation, the mysterious constitution of ourselves, the irrepressible tendency upward and onward, are evidence to me of a "higher law," a power intelligent outside of me, and a source of absolute right to which we are surely and slowly tending. We may never reach the ultimate goal; and this thought carries with it the more pleasing one of the endless progression of intelligence.
Self-evidence, necessity and universality have not yet been explained by those who believe not in intuitions. Mr. Mill has attempted it in his cunningly devised theory of "Association;" but it would not be difficult to show that Dr. McCosh has exploded his theory and exposed his fallacy.
So long as we believe in intuitions, the belief in absolute right will be held.
C. W. S.
Two Sophomores at Yale have been compelled to re-enter the Freshman class for hazing.
Mr. Thomas Carlyle has just entered his 84th year and is said to be in excellent health.