Thrasymachus : $b or, The future of moralsJoad, C. E. M. (Cyril Edwin Mitchinson)
Philosophy
Thrasymachus : $b or, The future of morals
Joad, C. E. M. (Cyril Edwin Mitchinson)
Ethics
In particular, women, no longer treated as the equals of men, are
alternatively worshipped and disregarded, blown aloft like soap bubbles
or jettisoned as lumber. The reaction, in short, is already well under
weigh, and its influence for many years to come will be great.
But the normal cycle of action and reaction, of licentious eighteenth
and Puritanical nineteenth centuries, depends for its recurrence on
the entrance of no new factors; it is bound up that is to say with the
property status of women and the production of children as the fruit
of sexual intercourse. Once new factors are introduced, it may well
be thrown permanently out of gear. Birth control and the economic
independence of women are to my mind factors of this kind. The changes
they portend are incalculable, and, though their full effects may be
delayed for two or three decades, no Puritan revival nor any number
of such revivals, whether backed by the law or finding expression in
public opinion merely, will in the long run be able to stand against
them.
* * * * *
I am conscious that what I have written in this book will seem to many
to be cynical and disruptive. I shall be charged with taking a low view
of human nature, and speaking slightingly of morality. My answer is,
first, that what I have written of in these pages is not human nature
as a whole, but that part of human nature only which expresses itself
in what is called morality; and secondly, that what is called morality
is not in any true sense of the word morality at all. Morality, as I
understand it, is positive: it insists that certain things are good and
ought to be pursued even if the heavens fall. But the habits of thought
and standards of conduct I have analyzed in this book, although they
are called morality, are not positive but negative. Their appeal is to
men’s fears rather than to their hopes; they tell them not what they
must do to be saved, but what they must not do if they are to avoid the
censure of society. Their basis is the instinct to possess, and their
weapon the power to blame. Men blame those who claim a liberty they
dare not assert for themselves, and dignify with the name of morality
the indulgence of possessive instincts in which savages glory without
hypocrisy. “What could I have done in the circumstances?” asked the
husband of an erring wife in a recent society scandal case. “If you ask
me to tell you I will. You could have told your wife that if she went
with the man again, you would get her divorced. You could then have
gone up to London and assaulted Sir X Y, and to hell with your career”,
replied the eminent counsel on the other side.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account