Rationality, Activity and Faith [pp. 58-86]

THE PRINCE TON RE VIEW..
explain a given should except by reference to a still deeper
should. The moral judgment is irreducible, and independent of
all judgments of fact. It applies to the subjective interests as
well as to the phenomena which they measure. Not only is it
best for my social interests to keep my promise, but best for me
to have those interests, and best for the cosmos to have this me.
Like the old woman in the story who described the world as
resting on a rock, and then explained that rock to be supported
by another rock, and finally when pushed with questions said it
was "rocks all the way down," he who believes this to be a
radically moral universe must hold the moral order to rest
either on an absolute and ultimate should or on a series of
shoulds "all the way down."
The practical difference between this sort of moralist and
one who makes moral judgments tributary to facts is enormous.
The materialist when his moral feelings are at war with the facts
about him is always free to seek harmony by toning down the
sensitiveness of the feelings. Being mere data, neither good nor
evil in themselves, he may pervert them or lull them to
sleep by any means at his command. Truckling, compromise,
time-serving, capitulations of conscience, are conventionally opprobrious names for what, if successfully carried out, would be
on the materialist's principle by far the easiest and most praiseworthy mode of bringing about that harmony between inner
and outer relations which is all he means by good. The absolute moralist, on the other hand, when his interests clash with
the world is not free to gain harmony by sacrificing the ideal interests. According to him these latter should be as they are and
not otherwise. Resistance then, poverty, martyrdom if need be,
tragedy in a word, such are the solemn feasts of his inward
faith. Not that the contradiction between the moralist and
materialist occurs every day. In commonplace matters all
moral schools agree. It is only in the lonely emergencies of life
that our moral creed is tested. Then routine maxims fail and
we fall back on our Gods. It cannot then be said that the question Is this a moral world? is a meaningless and unverifiable
question because it deals with something non-phenomenal.
Any question is full of meaning to which, as here, contrary
answers lead to contrary behavior. And it seems as if in
82