MORAL STANDARDS TO-DAY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20621, 10 August 1932, Page 8

MORAL STANDARDS TO-DAY.

TO THE EDITOR OJ> THE PBESS. gj rj —Courtesy ' prompts a reply to "Youth. No. 2." Ho has essayed the championship of the youth of to-day, who glory in a non-morality, but the lcply need not be a long one. T. find the letter interesting chiefly on account oi its admissions. He admits the lewdness of life in these Georgian days. He admits also that this generation is trying to but along "with, perhaps, none o! the liiguer iueals of tho past." He admits further that the young people of to-day are Hedonists. These things being admitted, surely any protest against the vicious stato it connotes should not bo resented. Surely, also, it will be admitted that the first Step towards the removal of sin evil should be the recognition of that evil, with all its implications. It was with that object in'view that I wrote. 1 cannot follow tho reasoning in "Youth No. 2's" letter. How he imagines that the individual in the Victorian years "was not subjected- to the temptations that exist to-day" is beyond nay understanding. In my youth ■ my contemporaries and myself were compact of just the same virtues and potential-vices as the young people of to-day. But ho iiad been trained to discipline our impulses, and we were all the better for that. 1 can hear the youth of to-day discuss openly and without shame thoughts which in my youth any decent young fellow would be ashamed to think of in his secret heart. "Youth No. 2" says this is an ago of.. freedom. Ho confuses freedom with license. As to his contention that God can be found anywhere, on the prinjro.se pat)), as in church, it savours to me of nothing but cant. Perhaps I need say no-more. "Youth. No. 2," if I do not misunderstand him, would argue that a grand moral training can bo-ensured by unrestrained indulgence; Ho has admitted the'moral decadence of which I wrote, but finds presumably as a result of that decadence "a finer product is emerging in'complete freedom and unhampered by hypocrisy." I will not characterise that, for I do not understand it; but I do think any charge of hypocrisy comes with an ill grace from an avowed Hedonist who seeks to disguise the character of bis

pleasures by calling them.Christian.— Yours, etc., PLAIN LIVING AND HIGH THINKING. August. 9th, 1982. TO THE EDITOR OF THT SKSSS. Sir,—l have read with interest several letters on the above topic, but none of them seem to me to touch an essential aspect of the question. Presentday youth are without a purpose in life, and like rudderless vessels they cannot do anything but drift about as this urge or that moves them. The old religious motives perished with onr fathers, and these latter had nothing to hand on to their offspring. The most important thing about these old religious motives was that they offered the individual something that took him out of himself; that is, something that made his own well-being depend on the well-being of a larger whole. It is essential that such a social purpose be recovered if we are to get out of the slough of despond .into which we hare as a society fallen. Said Mr Lloyd George a few days ago: "The nations are arming themselves more cleverly and more scientifically than ever before. A thousand millions sterling are being spent annually for a greater calamity, a greater, massacre than began in 1914." It is obvious that, if this massacre comes, we need not worry any more about the morals of youth; for there will be no youth left to woiry overt It is up to youth to forestall this fate which the old are unable to avert for them. Let them join up with the peace bodies or form peace bodies of their own. This will give them an interest and purpose in life. . But why look ahead to the next war? What about the actual presents How many of our youth are even now finding that there is no place for them, that they are not wanted! Society has allowed them to bo born, but it cannot give them work. Here ia another possibility for youth. Let them join existing parties or form youth organisations of their own to work for a new state of society that shall aim at the common good of &V. and hot the private profit of the few. This will give them an interest and purpose in life. It is natural, when talking of the morals of ycuth, to think of the relations of youth and maid. Will not this, too, be set on a better foundation when the primal aim of both youth and maid is not so much their own individual good, first and foremost, as the mutual strengthening of one another in the common purpose .of working for a more humane social order and the spreading of the conditions for peace throughout the world!— Yours, etc., ■N..-M. BELL. August Bth, 1932. TO THE EDnOB 0» THE PRESS

Sir, —Your correspondent, "Plain Living and High Thinking," confuses two issues and wishes to pick his own points from both. The question is not the value of Christian morals—most people are agreed about this—but whether the standard 0f morals is lower to-day than in times past. If your correspondent knows anyone in Christchurch, either Christian or pagan, who would wish to do what Calvan or Knox did, he should bring them forward.. The contention that these men lived in-i-ough times is'rather a poor excuse, but indicates thai our times andiour morals are better .—-Yours," etc., | FUTY-prvis. August Bth, 1932. ■■!