The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, MAY 8, 1878. A PHILOSOPHER AND MORALIST.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume V, Issue 261, 3 May 1878, Page 11

The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, MAY 8, 1878. A PHILOSOPHER AND MORALIST.

tate-

AST week it was cmr duty to call attention to a groat cx-Professop and a great report. When doing this, we little thought it would soon fall to our lot to encounter similar greatness, though of another order. But so it is. Men are slow to realise the probability of the surprises that are in store for them, and settle down to every day work as if nothing very striking were to happen in their circle for an indefinite period. Greatness is not met with often, and people therefore, particularly newspaper people, are slow to think it very likely they shall often, come across instances of it. To be sure, had we thought of our AttorneyGeneral, wo should not, after gazing in wonder on the great work of the ex-Professor, have fallen back so soon into an attitude of non-expectancy. For this lion, gentleman is a born genius, and learned too. In fact our past experience ought to have taught us that he might explode at any time to the joy of admiring satellites and the amazement of the general public. And indeed such an explosion took place last week. The occasion was the meeting of the Educational Institute in Dimcdin, and the mode A\ r as the elaborate, learned, and highly philosophical address by which he signalised his acceptance of the chair of the Institute. AYe are not quite certain that we arc qualified to discuss this Address, or that it is very prudent on our part to wrestle in argument with this mighty intellectual athlete. Nor shall we enter into controversy with him. We shall confine ourselves to calling the marked attention of our readers to some passages which strike us as rather extraordinary, and perhaps to asking a few questions. Mr. Stout's Address, as it appears in the Otctf/o Dailj/ Thnea, is headed — " Can Morals be taught in Secular Schoo's? " And his thesis is — Morals- can be taught there. But as it is impossible to discuss a thesis satisfactorily without having a clear definition of its terms, so Mr. Stout, after a few graceful preliminary remarks in reforonce to the position to -which h's fellow members had raised him, proceeds to define what \\v moans by Morals. Unless, however, the reporters arc to blame, he has not succeeded in making it clear that he entertains precise ideas on the s"Lioct himself. He asks the question — " What does one mean uy Morals ?." but he gives no definite answer, although he admits that — " oft disputes are occasioned by different meanings being given to the same word." He treats his friends to definitions by Mr. George Guote and Professor Bain, but there he leaves the matter, saying — " let us take moi-ality as conduct in Society." But this is a lame definition of a thesis in which the question <k Can Morals be taught in Secular Schools ? " is discussed. In fact this definition presupposes, as he afterwards expressly says, that apart from society no such thing as Morals exist. Morals then, according to Mr. Stout, is entirely something external, from the lips out, cannot exist without companionship, and has nothing whatever to do with internal acts, or such as are purely person a I. This is altogether an inadequate definition of morals, for the science which undertakes to regulate external acts, without paying any attention to internal, from which the external proceed, and by which they are informed, can not according to any principles of genuine philosophy, at least in our judgment, be said to be morals or ethics. We had always' been under the impression that morals or ethics meant a rule of conduct for man as an individual, as a member of the family, and as a member of society. Mr. Stout narrows down the meaning of the science to the rule of man's conduct in society. Well, he has a right to discuss the question in this narrow sense, but we do not think ho has a right to call it morals or ethics. Such, however, as wish to argue with him must confine themselves to the terms of his definition, such as it is. We absolutely refuse to abide by this idea of morality, and shall not, therefore, argue with him. But, we may say in passing, that he has not proved that such morals, as he admits, can be taught in secular schools.

He is conscious of the difficulties which the question of sanction gives rise to, and quietly puts them aside, saying that for one branch of morality,- obedience to the laws of -the State, a sufficient sanction can be pointed out — viz., the State's punishment, adding, " But obedience to the State's laws would not of itself constitute morality." Does not this seem to' imply a contradiction? How can the State's punishment be a sanction for such morality as is implied in obedience to the laws of the State, if n tho observance pf these laws does not constitute morality?. This, we • must ' candidly admit, 1 is beyond our comprehension. It is also 1 beyond our corn prehension how the State's punishment" can be a sanction for 'the' observance of laws, which, power „ or, cunning, oil certain'; fa-, vourable circumstances, 'ena-blcsi a man, to break with impunity. The morals of a man who knows he can, with absolute ' im- ! punity, defy the laws of the State, cannot be influenced by' the punishment of the State. Farewell to the morals that can be taught in public schools, if there be no other sanction for them than the State's punishment. But why go to 1 the enormous expense of a public system of education for the purpose of teaching morals under such a sanction ? There is Already established a more efficacious sj'stem of teaching such morality as is contained in obedience to> the laws of the State. ■ Thei'e are the gaols, the cat, the 1 triangle, penal servitude, the toads, and the gibbet. These constitute a sanction for the observance of the laws of the State such as no teaching in merely, secular schools can ever inculcate. . ' • ■ ) " There are duties to be performed and precepts to be ' obeyed," Mr. Stout says, ," which the .State neither requires nor teaches." What are these ? who is to point them out ? and, when pointed out, where is the sanction to be found, and how is it to be inculcated in a secular school ? Nothing is to ' be taught there but what is prescribed by the State. Anything beyond this is an intrusion and an usurpation. Is one schoolmaster to tell his pupils that the moral sense and sanction are the product of development from primordial mud ; another that these are to be found in the accumulated wisdom of the sages of all times and nations ; another that utility is the only guide and sanction ; another that there is an eternal all-seeing infinitely just being Avho infallibly rewards the good and punishes the wicked ; or perhaps are all these and other theories and principles to be taught in the same school and to the samu class by different teachers ? Is one master to teach that a lie is never permissible? another, as some great writers lme taught, that a lie is permissible under certain circumstances ? one that divorces arc never to be allowed ; another, <is a teacher lately announced in Dunedin, that divorce is a highly moral institution, and so on almost ad infinitum? What is the code of morality that can possibly he taught under a system of education that not only ignores God, but positively excludes Him from the school-room? or where is a sanction, except the sanction of the punishment of the State, which is weak indeed to restrain men's passions, to oe found under such a system ? Impossible. Morals cannot be taught in secular schools. A secular school has not, and cannot have, consistently with the idea of its existence, anything to <lo with morals except in so far as it is armed with authority from the State to interfere. And what it is allowed by, the State to do in this matter i.s inadequate, ludicrous, and mischievous. What Mr. Stout says in reference to truth is not clear to us. His words as reported, by the Daily Times are as follows :—": — " There is another thing which the teacher must teach, and that is truthfulness. That lies at the fonndation oi the tone of a school. And what does this virtue include ? Truthfulness means accurate observation," &c. This is news indeed to us. We were always under the impression that truthfulness meant a genuine correspondence between the interior and exterior in man ; that to be trutliful it is necessary for ti man to express externally what is in his mind, and nothing else. Hence we were taught that objective truth means that which is, and subjective truth that which appears to be. From this it follows that a man -.may be honest, truthful, and yet mistaken. But in the philosophy of Mr. Stout it is not so. Truthfulness means accurate observation, not the accurate expression of one's mind, of one's mil thoughts. Mr. Stout is not ashamed to descend to the stock argument of secularists — that religious faith is not always sufficient to produce right action ; and that religious faith and morality are not always inseparable. And Mr. Stout does really think he finds an argument in these platitudes. Who ever said these things are inseparable ? Certainly not those who have religious faith. And does it follow that because Mr.

Stout and men'of his party find some unworthy Christians that, therefore, faitli is of little or no avail ? Ho must be a shallow observer indeed, and a shallow thinker, who can fail to know that Christian nations, oven-tho worst amongst them, are immeasurably superior, in „every sense to non-Christian •nations, and that it is their Christianity which has secured to them this 'superiority.-'- 'Mr. Stout and men of his school argue, „* , Hi; v £\v'' ■i *V H.-I -'. >u>':' n j-lmtiiou- n ?.' :. «-. 'iocs'*.? contrary to all rules 01 logic and common .?ense,,irom ,ajpar- i_--*i _--* .tipular to, a (general,, and,, speak disrespectfully of Christianity because it has not utterly changcdilnunannature-and rendered -it 'impeccable, forgetting that' -liotwith'stancling its weakness, coi'ruption^and, liberty, human- nature has been enlightened, purified, elevated,' ,jind strengthened-./ bv h Christianity, v. What would the world be now, had there beenno Christianity ?^ The answer is given by the Social, moral, and -intellectual" 'state 'of non-Christian states. „'{",' \ \ -' ' * ' ,',' | But wp arc, expected to believe that what; Christianity Ims been imable to effect, will be certainly brought about by secular education. Folly, insanity! If belief in'a'perspiialGrti), in eternal rewards and punishments, has npt succeeded- in > preventing all crimes, all social evils, can it "be supposed L that the eradication of such a belief from the minds of men will bring about their moral aiul social regeneration ? It is ridiculously absurd 'to 1 imagine' such a' consummation. Faith ,in God Ifas hot prevented' all crimes, but disbelief in God with- . secular education certainly will !■ This is the sum and sub- 1 stance of the teaching of secularism in Dunedin. ' ' -' -'.