The conception of morality as a system of positive Divine Law, and the 'juridical method' which is said to mark early Christian writers on ethics[598], is perhaps attributable to the growth of an imperial spirit in the Church when she found herself confronted with the task of reducing to order the social chaos into which the fall of the Empire plunged Europe. S. Leo may be said to embody this spirit in a majestic personal form. The mark of Roman authority rests on the ordinances of the Church of this period. It may be that her rules of duty wear something of the aspect of a fixed, unvarying code. The moral problems with which she has to deal are comparatively simple; they admit of clear, concise treatment, in accordance with a fixed system of discipline; sharp distinctions are possible: and the Gospel thus presents to the world the features of an external Law.
Be this as it may, widely different conditions seem now to demand a definite system of Christian duty,—a study of 'special' or 'applied ethics.' The main feature of modern life is not social disorganization, but complexity of relationships; and although in the abstract no such thing is possible as a 'conflict of duties;' yet it is clear that duty is not always simple, or obvious. We need in fact something like a system of casuistry; of ethics applied to novel spheres, and special points of obligation. It is indeed reasonable to expect that as civilization advances, and new realms open up which the Christian spirit must appropriate, the Law of duty will be enriched; there will be expansion of its content: e.g. the development of Industry makes desirable the formulation of the 'Ethics of Labour;' the rise of a special class may raise the question whether 'class virtues' are to be recognised, and how they are to be estimated, by Ethics[599].
In this appendix some purpose may be served by noticing a few pressing moral problems of our time; some spheres of duty as to which guidance or development of principles seems called for.
i. In the sphere of self-regarding duty a point which needs attention is the truth of personal responsibility. There are influences at work which threaten the sense of accountability, whether for conduct or belief. There are of course speculative difficulties surrounding the question of freedom; there is wide misconception of its true meaning; but it needs to be clearly taught, that granted all limitations of the power of choice, moral responsibility remains for the use of the character, as of the property, which a man inherits[600]. A man's moral constitution, rigidly defined though it be by heredity, is yet his 'heritage,' his natural endowment, for the right direction of which he is responsible. The weak sense of this plain fact is noticeable in the lax and indulgent tone often used respecting criminals. 'To some of us,' it has been justly said, 'the individual is always innocent and society always guilty[601].' The degree of guilt, however, may be minimized (e.g. by the plea of ignorance), while the fact of it remains.
In this connection statistics of crime have a value which needs to be estimated. Do they point to conditions of society which must be faced as unalterable? or do they not rather usefully indicate the proper channels into which the stream of social energy should be directed?
Again, in the matter of personal belief, it is often assumed that there is no responsibility. The question, however, for each individual, if rightly stated, is simply this, 'What has been my attitude towards that which has presented itself to me as truth[602]?'
Another point of importance is the moral culture of Imagination, in relation chiefly to aesthetic recreation in its different forms, the Theatre, the pursuit of Art, the reading of Fiction. We are learning by serious experience the enormous power of fancy to kindle passion, and to colour human actions. In view of the spread of depraving literature, energetic assertion of duty towards this department of personality is needed. Such duty seems to be recognised in Phil. iv. 8.
ii. Passing to the sphere of family obligations, it is natural to remark on the break-up of family life which is so common a consequence of highly-developed industry. The employment of women in factories, etc., tends to make them unfit for domestic duties; while that of children encourages a spirit of independence which is not without social danger; thus not only the sense of parental duty, but the respect for parental authority, is impaired. Christians are bound to discountenance, or at least to counteract, this state of things so far as it interferes with the rudiments of moral discipline.
The pressing need of our day, however, would appear to be some clear teaching on the subject of marriage. There are different aspects of the marriage contract recognised in Scripture. But Christianity can make no terms with those theories which have borne fruit in lax legislation on divorce, with all its mischievous results. Marriage, according to the Christian view, is a serious vocation, with its own sacred duties, and special consecration. Improvident marriage is as immoral from a Christian as from an anti-Christian point of view[603]. Ethical considerations ought to guide or restrict the intention to marry; and with regard to the question of population, Christianity condemns any theory which offers a substitute for rational self-restraint. The true end of marriage, again, is something higher than 'happiness'; it is appointed for the mutual enrichment of personality, mutual freedom to fulfil the true ideal of human life. The whole subject has indeed become involved in difficulties which cannot be encountered by any mere statement of principles. There is no doubt, however, of the end which the Christian treatment of this point must keep in view.
iii. As to the social sphere generally, we begin by remarking that, from the Christian standpoint, every transaction between man and man is to be regarded as personal, and therefore ethical. The most significant fact perhaps of our time is the process of transition from (so-called) political to ethical economics. To reason rightly on social problems we must ever have regard to personality. For ethical purposes the abstract terms Capital, Labour, Production, Wealth, etc., must be replaced by personal terms, Employer, Employé, Producer, Man of Wealth, etc. Our problem is how to supersede the technical and legal relation by the personal[604].