                4 page printout, page 173 to 176
             INGERSOLL, A BIOGRAPHICAL APPRECIATION

                           CHAPTER 13.

                   WAS HE 'A MERE ICONOCLAST'?
                           (Continued)

        WERE HIS TEACHINGS INIMICAL TO LAW AND MORALITY?

     One of the most serious features of the general charge of
iconoclasm which has been preferred by the critics of Ingersoll is
the implication that the adoption of his teachings would destroy
the social fabric. All essential ideas in the countless laws which
have been formulated for the government of modern society, they
say, sprang from the Mosaic code, and to discredit the book of
which that code is a part would consequently plunge civilization
into anarchy.

     Probably a majority of Ingersoll's critics will admit,
whatever their opinion as to the breadth and depth of his biblical
scholarship, that his knowledge of jurisprudence was both wide and
profound, and that, therefore, if there ever was a criticism to
which he was peculiarly fitted to reply, it is the one in question.
He says: --

     "It has been contended for many years that the Ten
Commandments are the foundation of all ideas of justice and law.
Eminent jurists have bowed to popular prejudice, and deformed their
works by statements to the effect that the Mosaic laws are the
foundations from which spring all ideas right and wrong. Nothing
can be more stupidly false than such assertions. Thousands of years
before Moses was born, the Egyptians had a code of laws. They had
laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery, larceny, perjury, laws
for collection of debts, the enforcement of contracts, the
ascertainment of damages, of debts, the enforcement of contracts,
the ascertainment of damages, the redemption of property pawned,
and upon nearly every subject of human interest. The Egyptian code
was far better than the Mosaic.

     "Laws spring from the instinct of self-preservation. Industry
objected to supporting idleness, and laws were made against theft.
Laws were made against murder, because a very large majority of the
people have always objected to being murdered. All fundamental laws
were born simply of the instinct of self-defence. Long before the
Jewish savages assembled at the foot of Sinai, laws had been made
and enforced, not only in Egypt and India, but by every tribe that
ever existed."

     It would be both interesting and instructive to dwell upon
Ingersoll's views of the foundations of modern jurisprudence, but
it is far more vital, considering the nature of the criticism here
concerned, that we devote the space involved to the presentation of
his opinions and teachings regarding a different subject, -- a
subject to which, however, jurisprudence itself is closely related.

     It has often been asserted by his critics, that his teachings 
are, in the ultimate, antisocial and perverse, and that, therefore,
their universal acceptance would blot out of the mind all notion of
true ethics, and leave mankind without a moral standard. I shall  


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               173

             INGERSOLL, A BIOGRAPHICAL APPRECIATION

examine this criticism somewhat at length, placing his ethical
ideas in sharp contrast with those of his opponents, thus enabling 
us to ascertain the truth.

     Now, broadly speaking, just as there are in all other branches
of philosophy two directly opposed classes of thinkers, -- on the
one side, the monists, who believe that the universe is the
natural, necessary, and eternal all, and, on the other side, the
dualists, who believe that back of the universe is the
supernatural, -- so in ethics, or morals, there are two classes.

     With the dualistic school of moralists, which includes the
theological critics of Ingersoll, an act is right or wrong
according as it does or does not harmonize with the alleged command
of a supernatural being, which command either wells up as human
consciousness, or is found inscribed in some so-called sacred book,
or both. This means that an act is absolutely right or absolutely
wrong, regardless of its consequences; in other words, that
absolute right and absolute wrong exist in themselves, just as the
uoumenon, -- "the thing in itself," -- of the dualistic
metaphysician is supposed to exist back of phenomena. It
establishes a fiat in morals. It places ethical acts upon precisely
the same artificial basis as civic acts. To-day it is lawful to
throw refuse on to the street. To-morrow the governor signs a bill,
and lo! the throwing of refuse on the street is "unlawful." To-day,
as far as we know, stealing is right. To-morrow we read in a book,
"Thou shalt not steal," and lo!stealing is absolutely wrong. Of
course, if, as the theological moralists undeniably imply, stealing
and certain other acts were made wrong by the commandments of
Jehovah, it follows, as a necessarily unavoidable corollary, that
those acts were right before, and that they would still be right
had the commandments of Jehovah not been given. And this is only
one side of the proposition. The assertion that a Supreme Being
could by command make wrong that which before was right,
necessarily and unavoidably implies that he could make right that
which before was wrong. Nor is this all that is implied by
dualistic theological morals.

     If by the will or command of the Supreme Being certain acts
were made either absolutely right or absolutely wrong, the fact of
relativity, which applies in every other branch of thought, must be
utterly ignored in ethics. If, for example, stealing is absolutely
wrong, it is as great a crime to steal a grain of millet from the
wealthiest man in the world as to steal the last penny from a
helpless and homeless invalid. Indeed, we might make even more
striking comparisons, since we are by no means logically limited to
the comparison of acts of like nature. It is, I say, as great a
crime, according to the dualistic theological critics of
Ingersoll's ethics, to covet your neighbor's ox as to murder the
happiest and most useful member of society. These, I urge, are not
exaggerations but perfectly logical deductions from the premises of
the dualistic theological moralist. And precisely the same
reasoning is conversely applicable to such acts of virtue as were
sanctioned or commanded by Jehovah.

     It is hardly necessary to point out, that the system of
ethics, or morals, the cardinal principles of which I have
indicated in this brief exposition is, in the ultimate analysis, 

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               174

             INGERSOLL, A BIOGRAPHICAL APPRECIATION

based solely and absolutely upon belief in a First Cause, or
Creator, and that, so far as the Jewish and both the Catholic and
the Protestant theologians are concerned, the base of the system in
question is still further narrowed to belief in the Old and the New
Testaments. After what has previously been written in this work, I
shall not discuss the tenability of that belief, but shall proceed,
at once, to contrast with the moral system ultimately resting upon
it the ethical ideas of the Great Agnostic.

     In the first place, to the dogmatic assertion of the dualistic
theological moralist, that all rational beings derive their
knowledge of right and wrong from a superior being, Ingersoll would
propose the relentlessly logical query: How, then, can the most
superior being, that is, the very Supreme Being himself, be moral?

     If, as all theologians assert, the most superior ("most
superior" itself implies relativity) being of whom we can conceive
is absolutely good, it follows, as a necessarily unavoidable
corollary, that the most inferior ("most inferior" also implies
relativity) being of whom we can conceive is absolutely bad. But
the most inferior being of whom we can conceive is not absolutely
bad. Therefore, the first side of our proposition falls. To state
the problem in a different way, we cannot conceive of absolute
goodness unless we can conceive of absolute badness. We cannot
conceive of absolute badness. Therefore, we cannot admit the
absolute in morals -- nothing absolutely good, nothing absolutely
bad; nothing absolutely moral, nothing absolutely immoral. Both are
alike inconceivable. "The absolute," says Ingersoll, "is beyond the
human mind."

     If, then, man did not derive from a being superior to himself,
that is, from a supernatural being, his present knowledge of right
and wrong, -- of morality, -- and if absolute right and absolute
wrong, absolute morality and absolute immorality, are alike
inconceivable, whence, according to Ingersoll, did man derive the
knowledge in question? and what is man's standard of conduct? We
will allow Ingersoll himself to answer this question, in a few
sentences carefully collated from here and there in his works: --

     "Morality is based upon the experience of mankind." "Man is a
sentient being -- he suffers and enjoys." "Happiness is the true
end and aim of life." "Happiness is the only good." "By happiness
is meant not simply the joy of eating and drinking -- the
gratification of the appetite -- but good, well-being, in the
highest and noblest forms." "In order to be happy * * * [man] must
preserve the conditions of well-being -- must live in accordance
with certain facts by which he is surrounded." "That which
increases the sum of human happiness is moral; and that which
diminishes the sum of human happiness is immoral." "All actions
must be judged by their consequences, * * * and all consequences
are learned from experience. After we have had a certain amount of
experience, we then reason from analogy. We apply our logic and say
that a certain course will bring destruction, another course will
bring happiness." "There is in the moral world, as in the physical,
the absolute and perfect relation of cause and effect." "If
consequence are good, so is the action. If action had no
consequences, they would be neither good or bad." "So, the
foundations of the moral and the immoral are in the nature of 

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               175

             INGERSOLL, A BIOGRAPHICAL APPRECIATION

things -- in the necessary relation between conduct and well-being,
and an infinite God cannot change these foundations, and cannot
increase or diminish the natural consequences of actions." "There
is nothing inspired about morality -- nothing supernatural." "The
highest possible standard is human."

     Ingersoll's insistence, with Mill, Spencer, and other
philosophers, upon the soundness of utilitarian morals, as implied
by the single phrase "the greatest happiness for the greatest
number" -- a phrase which made glorious the name of Jeremy Bentham
-- is perhaps best shown by the following paragraph: --

     "Morality is capable of being demonstrated. You do not have to
take the word of anybody; you can observe and examine for yourself.
Larceny is the enemy of industry, and industry is good; therefore
larceny is immoral. The family is the unit of good government;
anything that tends to destroy the family is immoral. Honesty is
the mother of confidence; it unites, combines and solidifies
society. Dishonesty is disintegration; it destroys confidence; it
brings social chaos, it is therefore immoral."

     After this brief presentation, I cannot refrain from quoting
Ingersoll's comparison of the practical workings of the two ethical
theories here concerned: --

     "Christianity teaches that all offenses can be forgiven. Every
church unconsciously allows people to commit crimes on credit. I do
not mean by this that any church consciously advocates immorality.
I most cheerfully admit that thousands and thousands of ministers
are endeavoring to do good -- that they are pure, self-denying men,
trying to make this world better. But there is a frightful defect
in their philosophy. They say to the bank cashier: You must not
steal, you must not take a dollar -- larceny is wrong, it is
contrary to all law, human and divine -- but if you do steal every
cent in the bank, God will as gladly, quickly forgive you in Canada
as he will in the United States. On the other hand, what is called
infidelity says: There is no being in the universe who rewards, and
there is no being who punishes -- every act has its consequences.
If the act is good, the consequences are good; if the act is bad,
and these consequences must be born by the actor. It says to every
human being: You must reap what you sow. There is no reward, there
is no punishment, but there are consequences, and these
consequences are the invisible and implacable police of nature.
They cannot be avoided. They cannot be bribed. No power can awe
them, and there is not gold enough in the world to make them pause.
Even a God cannot induce them to release for one instant their
victim.

     "This great truth is, in my judgement, the gospel of morality.
If all men knew that they must inevitably bear the consequences of
their own actions -- if they absolutely knew that they could not
injure another without injuring themselves, the world, in my
judgement, would be far better than it is."

     Finally, the combined ultimate conclusions of all moralists,
from Confucius to the present, amount to no more than this single
epigram of Ingersoll: --

     "Morality is the best thing to do under the circumstances."

                          ****     ****
                               176
