The Dominion. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1913. A QUESTION OF MORALS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1937, 20 December 1913, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1913. A QUESTION OF MORALS.

' This is .a'levelling age in which ideals that have been long established and. standards that have stood the tesi of time-arc apt to be throWn down or abandoned, with . little forethought as to whether anything better.., exists, with which to replace them.- ;To an'extent the lack, of reverence for tradition and its usages which marks the present ago is a natural, accompaniment of free expansion and development. We need more elbow-room than our forefathers, and cannot be expected to abide within the limits which they marked out. At the same time there arc destructive tendencies to be observed in both high and humble walks of life which are -wholly pernicious, in character, and would afford cause for the gravest apprehension if they were not opposed by strong ■influences .which operate in the contrary direction—in the direction, that is to say, of conserving all that is best in the present organisation o£ society, and in its religious, moral, and social ideals. A striking example of irresponsible destructive criticism has been brought out in a controversy ■ recently waged in the columns of the London "Times," tho principal disputants being respectively Mit. Geohge Bernard Shaw and the Bishop of Kensington (On. Maud). The original subjectmatter of the controversy is less interesting than the general considerations in regard to moral standards to which it gave rise. The attention of the Bishop of Kensington was drawn to a performance at one of the London variety theatres which was considered objectionable, and he brought the matter under the notice of the Lord Chamberlain, with the result that tho management of- the theatre;.,were- compelled to drop the features complained of from the performance. Mil. Siiaw had not seen the performance, but lie took it upon himself to enter the lists against the Bishop of Kensington as a champion of his own'peculiar views of morals. Speaking as a working playwright, he contended that the Bishop, on the face of it, was demanding that plays that he happened to like should bo tolerated, and that. those which ho happened- not ■ to like should be banned, Mr. Shaw puts the essential points of his case against- the Bishop into the-following sentence:

"110 (tho Bishop) nses thft word 'objectionable" as if there wery a general agreement as to what is objectionable mid what is not, in spite of the fait that the very entertainment to which he himself objected had proved highly attractive to large numbers of people whose taste is entitled to the same consideration as his own."

: This, means, if it means anything at all,' that a Bishop, a guardian o£ public morality by virtue of his office,_is BOibsttar qualified than the man in the street to judge whether or not'iin entertainment is liable, to injuriously affect the public morals. By the same line of reasoning it might be argued that a bricklayer is no better qualified to build a chimney or a wall than a.man who has never handled a trowel in his life. Obviously a Bishop, .if he is anything at all, is just as much an expert in determining, questions of morals as a bricklayer is in the practice of his trade; or for that matter, as Mie. Shaav is in writing plays and occasionally chopping logic by way of light relaxation. If Mr. Shaw admits, as 1 he presumably does, that Bishops have a right to exist and to cxcrcisc ecclesiastical functions, he is treading on thin' ice when he contends that they have no right to bring their 'in/hienco to bear upon the moral tone of theatrical productions. A Bishop, to adopt the Socialistic phraseology, is;a skilled specialist in ' the social commonwealth. His claim to recognition and standing rests upon his qualifications, gained by training and experience. There; arc different grades of moral perception' and enlightenment, and general standards of good taste, decency and morality exist, which members of a civilised community arc required to respect, even though, in some, instances, th\v may be incap-' able of perceiving to the full, tho, worth and utility of these standards, If Mr. Shaw's idea of leaving it to the uninfluenced judgment of each individual to- settle a question of morals for himself were carried to its. logical ■ conclusion, - the result woultfbc either-a state of anarchy in which innumerable upheavals would occur, or a condition of flatmonotony in which every individual would bo compelled to tolerate everybody else's own particular brand of morals,-.or lack of morals. _ _ : It has been- said that this is a levelling age;-.it.is also in some rcspects a lazy ago, in which pcopls are .very apt- to'dispose of problems that arise from time to time, by setting them 'aside . unsolved.' Such shoddv doctrines as ..Mi!,. Siiaw has laid his pen to. in tho present- instance* arc ".therefore • all the.- more likely"tofgain"a popularity which they'in no way deserve.- Public men and.;-'loaders i'md an • easy. road to po'p_iila'ri.ty • nowadays-;-,by. „ avoiding any-.'iittempt to impose the. labour of thought-..upon the -people .with whom they'.come in contact.' At the. root of Hie.;;inatter lies and slothful- indifference.,-to public and private duties, and a disposition to shirk':,: responsibilities of all. kinds. This-sort, of thing dot;s a great deal to sap',-the vitality nalion, and to a great extent makes its sound and progressive 'development a matter always open to doubt. - Every honest iii?d earnest attempt to awaken a community to its religious, moral, and - ■ -' - ...

tliat;{accpnnt/ ; :besj.vp]conied' by think-®, irig ; ami"wi.in 'H.n Jl'.isVihis' sjjirit; i t;lial^is}: : .bohiiid.i tiio:^v'Kibk*-i : niofimeiit^n;, 1 ■ Uiis'Spuu n spine tlii life than' i! wider-spread kmiwl'.of tii". 'jib!'' ii.'tt- its iulviH'ali'ii dedi'e';, • tl!cy',Eeosiri; it'.-, the "means.'of'strengthjS oiling the -whole moral fibre 1 "of; thenation. .The controversy between Mu.: Shaw. .-uid the- Bishop of Kensington:, is only a.phase,' of'a.- vary large quea» tion. There 'is one little fact &ssd : -.ciatedi.with; the : ''disputation, that is .wortlU v inentioning because it' also iiiu.'itratDs'i.vei'y . well a <tendency of the times.-vMi:. Shaw, it scorns, had never,, seen the performance; tlioj Bishop ,o£ Kensington had aceii it, I Yet" Mft:'- Sua^w "wrote and argued with no less,'assurance on this account. Like some of our Socialist iricuds,'the greater then ignorance the more confidently they -proclaim the cure-all virtues of their our particular brand of nostrum.