The ‘hungry-to-eat-a-man,’ tiger knows that if he first growls out his intentions, and then openly bounds up to his intended victim, he will (most probably) get an explosive bullet neatly lodged in his cerebrum. Consequently he ambushes himself in the shadow of a rock or behind a log, and leaps upon his ‘dinner’ with varying results. It is the same — exactly the same, among carnivorous bipeds. A few of them are tigers, hungry-to-eat-a-man, and the rest are — tiger’s-meat, hungry to be eaten. The fact is that Civilization’s moralisms are wholly ultra-rational, fundamentally un-natural and utterly inoperative. Christian principles and Natural principles mutually antagonize one another. Nature is Anti-Christ. Darwinism is the mortal foe of Hebraism.
Nature’s command is, “Be egoist, possess the earth and fight it out.” Jusus insists, “Be altruistic, abandon the world, and love your enemies.” Darwin proclaims, ‘All ye are rival carnivores! Be strong therefore, and bold, and fear — Nothing.’ Christ teaches, “All ye are dearly beloved brethren. Be obedient therefore and “good” and fear — Ghosts.” Jesus urges his devotees to pray for deliverance. Darwin gently intimates his heartfelt belief in the Law of Battle. ‘He who will not work, neither shall he eat’ is the Apostolic pronounciamento. “He who will not fight, neither can he eat” is Nature’s savage logic.
‘It is more blest to give than to receive’ is the vacuous baby-prattle of the Pastor. It is more blest to capture then to receive, is ordinary Common Sense.
He who denies man’s right to exploit man, impeaches, not the conduct of man, but the order of nature.
Who then is right — the Anglo-Saxon or the Israelite? The scientist or the oratorical wonder-worker? The Western thinker or the Eastern dreamer? Which is the True Faith: — Japhet’s logic or Shem’s Fabulism?
Common-sense provides no precise solution of Right or Wrong. “All moral philosophy is false and vain” for man is unlimited. In the realm of Ethics, most modern wiselings are fanatical and unreasonable bigots. They really believe that Ethical Principles are as a house built on a rock; whereas “the House” is an unfounded hypothesis, and “the Rock” non existent.
Good and Evil liveth only in men’s minds. They are not Realities but shadows — credos — ghosts — and only the maddest of the mad worship their own Shade.
What is Right — what is Wrong? These elemental interrogatories have been asked in every age, and every age formulates replies to suit itself. De facto Right and Wrong are no more than arbitrary algebraic signs, representing hypnagogic phantasies. They are mere symbols emblematic of belated fragments of insolent ecclesiastical crudities. In nature, all developments are essentially one and the same phenomenon infinitely transfused and intermingled. Good and Evil are human inventions, born of human foolery, narrowness, and short-sightedness. The organic brain is far too small and too contemptible, to completely comprehend what nature is driving at. What appears to be wrong to us, may be right in nature, and vice versa.
We can no more establish an infallible system of ethics, than we can establish infallible systems of religion, philosophy or politics. All the Universe is in a state of flux, and men are but a swarm of querulous, heat-evolved insectivores, living aimlessly on the top of a floating cork, that whirls and darts and rolls over and over and over; amid the scum and froth and slime of a boiling, bubbling Alembic. Within his own sphere individual man is, and ought to be the supreme determinant. Outside of that sphere he knows absolutely nothing — and philosophy less than nothing.
As for the prophets of Futurity, from the days of Gautama, Bel, and Ishtar, down to Christ, Mahomet, Peter, Luther, Calvin, and Brigham Young; they have been strident “deceivers all” working on the emotional credulity of women — and doltish rabbles. A false teacher may be earnestly and honorably sincere in al his theoria, but that does not necessarily demonstrate intrinsic divinity. Many false prophets have been murdered (because of their opinions) besides Jesus of Nazareth, Judea; and Smith of Nauvoo, Illinois. The execution of the founder of Mormonism (inspired by political clamor) is an exact parallel to the execution of the founder of Christianity (inspired by priestly clamor). The point is — neither shooting nor crucifixion are satisfactory proofs of divinity or probity.
Right and Wrong, like Up and Down, East and West, are relative terms, without any fixed or finite meaning. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. Newfoundland lies East form Chicago, but West from Berlin. All depends upon the point of view. Consequently what may be ‘right’ in one age may, in another age, be wholly ‘wrong’.
In ancient Rome it was considered the height of impiety, heresy, and treason, for free born citizens to adore a circumcised Asiatic; but in modern Europe and America, it is considered pious and fashionable and highly commendable to do so.
Even what is right to one man, under one set of circumstance, may be utterly wrong to the same man under a different set of circumstances. Cromwell as colonel of the Ironsides, thought regal absolutism the essence of all diabolism: but as President of the Republic, he defended it (in himself) as — ‘a crowning mercy.’
When Government soldiers shoot down American “rebels” that is called “a glorious victory” but when Government soldiers shot Colonial rebels during the Red Flag Riots (inaugural of the War of Independence) that is conventionally labeled ‘wicked massacre.’
When a band of rich men plunder the poor, that is business shrewdness, practical statesmanship, of financial integrity; but if bands of poor men plunder the rich, that is larceny, burglary, highway robbery, and rebellion. When the Anglo-Saxon invader is cooped-up and slaughtered in India, that is mutiny and red-handed murder; but when he mows down the sepoys in battalions, or fastens them to the muzzles of cannon and blows them into ribbons, that is upholding the majesty of Law and of Order. When Cuban guerillas kill Spaniards, all American papers describe it as “war” but when the Spaniards retaliate and kill the Cubans, that is ‘horrible butcheries by General Weyler.’ Spanish cut-throats are glorified (in Spain) as dashing heroes, and the Cuban patriots described as brigands, outlaws, and brutal Negro murderers. All depends upon the point of view.
Victory sanctifies. In the realm of abstract Ethics there is no other Fact upon which the plain man can finally make up his mind. As far as Sociology is concerned, ethical principles are decided by the shock of contending armies. Right has always been emblazoned on the standards of Victory, and wrong on the draggled rags of Lost Causes.
“When Brennus, commander of the ancient Gauls, attacked the Clusians a Roman ambassador protested, asking ‘what offense have the Clusians given you?’ Brennus laughed at the question, and replied: — ‘Their offense is the refusal they make to divide the country with me. It is the same offense that the people of Alba, the Fidenians and Ardeans gave you: and lately the Vienans, the Falisci, and the Volsci. To avenge yourselves, you took up arms and washed your injury in their blood: you subdued the people, pillaged their houses, and laid waste their cities and their countries: and in this you did no wrong or injustice: you obeyed the most ancient laws, which gave to the Strong the possessions of the Weak; the sovereign law of nature, that begins with the gods and ends with the animals. Suppress therefore O Romans, your pity for the Clusians. Compassion is yet unknown to the Gauls: do not inspire them with that sentiment, lest they should have compassion upon those you oppress.”