Untitled

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 701, 29 November 1933, Page 6

M, H.

HAMPSON

The "Post" at all tlmes welcomftB corx espondence from Its reaciers. It must, however, be clearly und^rsto.od that we accept no responsibiluy for the views expressed by our correspondents. (To the Editor.) Sir, Your leading article' of to-day, m which you ask for higher ethics and less materialism in our treatment of social problems, is worthy of attention. A conception of ethics based on a negation . of Deity, or indeed on the denial of the foundation-stone of Christianity, has not yet- been introduced into our demesne of thought. It is clear that a clear and definite ethical expression is more than merely material and germane to any social problem; it is a condition precedent to any attempt at reconstruction of social and economical problems. But X have listened in vain for any such expression from any advocate of cur- ■ rency reform. It is not illogical for the man who is harrassed by business and family cares to say that his life is so fully occupied that he_ can give no consideration to economical problems or matters of ethics. Nor is it illogical for the young people of today to say that the middle-aged and elderly fogies who got this world into a mess can clear up the mess, but for themselves the problems of existence and sport are sufficient. But it is utterly illogical for any man to suggest any economic reform without asserting where such reform stands ethically. Is there any philosophical treatise written during the last ten years which alleges "There is no God," and supports the allegation by argument that appeals to the ordinary man of intelligence? I know of none. Have you yet met a man of intelligence, who, convinced of the existence of Deity, is able to lay down the proposition, and affirm it with reasonable argument, that the corner stone of Christianity, the Divinity of Christ, is a myth? I have not. Wo have passed through an era of passive religious scepticism which might have continued indefinitely in a comparatively prosperous materialistic age. But to-day, the stress of modern conditions compels the "man in the street" to consider new social and econopiie conceptions. There is no intelligeh.ee so robust and definite, so impregnated with common-horse . sense as that of the "man in the , street." In the long run he refuses to be "bluffed" and insists on getting , down to essentials. For that reason I suggest, Mr.

Editor, that you contmue your most admirable work by boldly and definitely putting to those who are urging radical social or economic reform the following queries: — (1) Is it necessary that your proposals consider ethical as well as material grounds? (2) If so, is your conception of ethics based on (a) a negation of Deity and/or (b) a denial of Chi'istianity? (3) If not, must you not affirm that a condition precedent to the acceptance of your proposals, or any similar roposals, is a deliberate and conscious belief in the truth of Christianity? (4) Does not this connote, as a first step, active effort to promote such belief? I am etc.,

Rotorua, November z».