Social justice composes the chief part of the religious tenets of the Bible. Even Nietzsche (Jenseits des Guten und Bösen) considers the Old Testament as essentially the book of Divine justice. אל רחום וחנון a God of mercy and pity is Jehova—, but אל רחום וחנון he will by no means clear the guilty. (Exodus xxxiv, 6-7.) Even the passage in the stern Nahum (I, 2) אל קנוא ונקם is falsely translated, “a god of revenge.” It really means “He is a god of retributory justice.” The prophetic teachers, just as the present-day socialists, never asked for love and mercy but for right and justice. The portrayal of a pious man in ancient Israel is given in Job xxix, 12, and xxxi, 13. It is the man of strict social justice. Philo Judeus (Περὶ Φιλανθρωπίας) pointed out the greatness of the social law in ancient Judaism.
These Biblical ideas of liberty, equality and brotherly love have been taken up by the altruistic materialists and raised to the top of the mountain of life as a beacon for humanity’s fragile skiff. But the sources whence these ideals originated are not only entirely ignored but are reviled, defamed and ridiculed by these radicals. The socialists did not create the ideals of social justice, as found in their doctrines. They borrowed them from the Jewish-Christian creed, and as atheists—ninety per cent. of them profess atheism—they repudiate this same creed. They borrow the ancient religious ideals of charity and social justice from Christianity and repudiate Christianity.[DI] As altruistic materialists, they are theologically agnostics, but their impulses are Christian. But by this repudiation of religion they forfeit the very foothold to stand upon. Religion has behind its ideal the authority of the divine will. What is behind the materialistic ideal? What is the goal of materialism? Supposing the Spirit of the age, that puts material well-being before all other prizes of life, should carry the victory, supposing the ideal of a perfect materialism should be realized, what then? Cui bono?
Contrary to the Judeo-Christian highest ideal of protection of the poor and disinherited, there is the brutal philosophy of Nietzsche’s superman. While the former proclaims the sublimity of abnegation in the interest of the present weak and downtrodden, the latter preaches the extermination of these weaklings in the interest of the future generations of supermen.
The vindictive vandal-like philosophy of Nietzsche demands the destruction of the weaker by the stronger.[DJ] In this way a perfect aristocracy will arise. But the principle of a good aristocracy must be not to exist for the sake of society, but only as a foundation and scaffolding by means of which an elect kind of being may arise to its higher tasks.
But what are the higher tasks? Here Nietzsche is perfectly silent. What is the highest value, what is man’s standard of values by which we may judge and measure the valuable? What is the best for society? What are the greatest aims and ends in life? Are the material gains of society of supreme value? Is the building of railroads, telegraphs, telephones or factories of supreme value, or are the ends of life the writing of lyrics, painting of pictures, and the chiseling of statues? What will be reached with the superstate of society? If the end and purpose of human existence were known, we could decide whether it is worth while to expend human energy upon the increase of material well-being, whether it is preferable to conserve the energy for the attainment of spiritual joys, or whether the ethical efforts would be of the highest cosmic value. But the ultimate purpose being unknown, or even unknowable, what will be reached when the superman has been produced? What is he going to accomplish? What when the highest degree of accomplishment has been reached in science, art, literature and economics, what then? If all men were Aristoteles, Kants, Spencers, if all women were Sapphos, Mme. de Staëls or George Eliots, what then? Humanity would soon starve if it consisted of Apollos, Venuses and intellectual giants only. A Venus was not created to wash dishes, neither will an astronomer make a proficient bricklayer or a poet a good shoemaker, Hans Sachs to the contrary notwithstanding. The catch-phrase that society nowadays wants not the man who is a good machine but the man who can make one, sounds clever but is not true. The truth is that for every machine invented, we need hundreds and thousands of men to handle the same. A population consisting of supermen only, such as inventors, captains of industry, professional men, rulers, statesman, generals, poets, artists, etc., could not exist for any length of time.
The different brands of reformers claim that, following their doctrines, it will lead to the highest advantage of humanity. But they fail to give the definition of advantage. What is the best for humanity? What is man’s purpose and aim in this world? What is meant by the fulfilment of man’s destiny? The answer is entirely meaningless, that the real aim is to be useful in real life, and only begs the question. What is life, what is it here for? Whence does man come, whither is he traveling?
What is the aim of civilization? All civilization is merely an intense effort to make life beautiful. If life is trivial, then civilization is vanity and vexation of the spirit. What profits man to wear out body and mind in the service of civilization? Civilization has been developed on a metallic basis. Tools, implements, instruments and machinery form the landmarks of the different civilizations. The gold of Ophir, the copper of Sinai, the silver of Laurium were part of the web and woof of the early civilization. In modern times industrialism has become nearly the sum total of our civilization. The highest boast of our present civilization is wireless, aeroplanes, telephones, telegraphs, railroads, all mere facilities of living and communication. If life is mere vanity, then all civilization or progress is a figment.
Another kind of ethical valuation has been proclaimed by the “moralists of work.” It has first found eloquent expression in Zola’s so-called four evangelia, especially in ‘Le Travail’ and in ‘La Fécondité.’ The sermon preached there is work for work’s sake. The god worshiped is the god of things material. Man is told to go forth with a high and noble purpose toward the god of things. These new preachers of the morality of work have almost succeeded to create a certain frenzy for work. The success virus of things material is being steadily pumped into men and even women, so that life has become simply a whirl of things of no survival value whatsoever. The crude materialism and realism of our times have created a feverish and almost insane craving for things, a quenchless fever for things material. The spirit of the hour is the material world-building, the lust for material things, the intoxication of work.[DK] Hence the high-pressure requirements of modern existence which have created in the people a total lack of proportion, a lack of all sense of relative values. The relative value of a thing, representing its power to relieve man’s wants, has become confounded with positive values which only timeless things possess.
People labor and look forward; but what do they look forward to? Our existence is so fleeting. One intangible fleeting hour, and we drop into the hollows of oblivion. If the only aim in life are material things, then the absurdity of life is unquestionable. If life means anything at all, none of man’s expressions of life can be an end in itself. If the only divinity is the god of work, then the triviality of life, whether of the life of the high or of that of the low, of the king or of the beggar, is evident. What profit will accrue to humanity even if it consisted of kings and princes only? If the future of man is only a material well-being, there is no profit in struggling and suffering for an aimless future. Granted that in this future such fatalities of life, as sorrow, hunger, vice, prejudice could be eliminated, granted that every man, woman and child will have their equal shares in the great duties and privileges of life, will such a life be less valueless and purposeless when death approaches?
Morality of love.—While the three systems of conduct, just mentioned, are founded upon certain ideals, even if they be the ideals of materialism (paradox), the morality of a certain school of modern writers has raised as its ideal the most perfect egotism extant. This effeminate, fade species of literature proclaims the absolute dictature of Eros as the new ethics. The genius of propagation has deluded and beguiled these new moralists to proclaim their intoxication of sensuality as a new religion of personality.[DL] Their doctrine teaches that voluptuous sensuality is the moral ground of sexual relations.[DM] They preach the all-importance of love as the last word of human wisdom. Men should live for the physical desires, and in the instincts of the moment. Man ought to ignore every thing that is not wholly material, he must strive to be a good animal. The complete satisfaction of his desires, the dip into the vices and pleasures of the senses, the plenary indulgences of the flesh, are the primordial and ineffaceable rights of man. These individualists simply deify passion. Their vulgar eroticism and their constant erotic rumination, which fill their entire effeminate literature, are covered with a veil of insipid verse. The high-sounding phrases and glittering generalities, emitted by these writers of the literature of futurism, poorly conceal the true meaning of their religion of sensuality. A phrase that expresses their belief in a heaven wherein men and especially women will come into their own, really means wherein men and women will be allowed to give their passions free rein. Nothing but sensuality is meant by phrases such as spiritual attraction or the soul’s complement. When such a feminist proclaims to the world that “woman wishes to cease to be a subject and longs to be considered a human being,” she really means that every sensual excitement she awakens should be taken seriously.