Part 2
And now comes yet another difficulty, namely, the frequent lack of harmony between the ethical motives which inspire an action and its real moral value.
“Ich bin Ein Theil von jener Kraft Die stets das Böse will Und stets das Gute schafft,”
says Mephistopheles in Goethe’s _Faust_.[B] Let us say often instead of always, and mention also that other Power which often wills the good and yet does the evil, and we have the well-known picture of the intelligent, ambitious egotist, who, without any sense of duty, achieves great and good results; and that of the foolish, infatuated altruist, who devotes the whole might of his zeal for duty to the service of socially pernicious forces!
[B] “I am a part of that power which always wills the evil and always does the good.”
* * * * *
As a result of exaggerating the above-mentioned phenomena certain theorists have imagined that ethics can be founded upon pure egotism. But this is a mistake. Without the altruistic impulses of sympathy and duty among its individual members no common social existence can thrive; on the contrary, it must degenerate.
The power of the emotions in man is much too strong to allow of any other result. Any one who imagines that he is completely master of his emotions makes, if possible, a still greater mistake than one who avows that he has never lied, or that his actions are governed by free-will. All human morality is bound up with these impulses and emotions. Socialism, for instance, will become moral, or else it will not come to pass. Without the support of the social conscience of mankind it cannot become moral. Every effort must therefore be directed towards strengthening the social conscience.
The falsity of the theory of absolute good and evil is demonstrated by the whole disposition of a world in which living creatures are designed to prey upon one another. When a spider devours a fly it is good for the spider and bad for the fly. The ethical value of the act itself is therefore purely relative.
It is just the same with human ethics. To attempt to explain all the evil in the world by the sin of Adam is to attribute a miserable incapacity to God. The same holds true of the attempts of certain modern Protestants to set up the dogma of a progressive revelation, in order to bring the older dogmas into harmony with the theory of evolution and descent. All these halting exegeses are only new models of the artificial drags which theology seeks to impose upon the free research of science.
Altruism and egotism stand only in relative opposition. Among ants and bees they are instinctively adjusted to one another with wonderful harmony, and are rarely, if ever, found in conflict. This result can and must be striven after by mankind, however great may be the difficulties presented by our hereditary nature. For its achievement a harmonious co-operation of the hereditary social conscience with reason and knowledge is absolutely necessary.
I must briefly mention two other points. Firstly, morality and social or race hygiene become one and the same thing directly we include in our conception of hygiene a healthy condition of the brain or soul, and subordinate the individual hygiene to that of society in general. Then everything socially unhygienic is immoral, and everything immoral socially unhygienic. If, for instance, I ruin a healthy, active member of society, in order possibly to achieve the salvation of an incurably diseased criminal, I am committing, although from altruistic motives, an act which is injurious from the point of view both of ethics and social hygiene, and therefore evil and immoral.
Secondly, the boundaries of jurisprudence and of ethics are by no means clear. Jurisprudence is more narrowly confined. It has no right to lay claim to or to pass a verdict upon everything which ethics may discover or attain. Laws and the constraint they imply are a necessary evil, a crutch for the lame and defective social conscience. They must be reduced to an indispensable minimum. The ethical and social instincts, on the other hand, can never be too highly developed. Humanity must gradually develop in the future to such a point that jurisprudence may be completely replaced by an instinctive and inculcated social impulse.
“Es erben sich Gesetz und Rechte Wie eine ew’ge Krankheit fort.”[C]
[C] “Laws and statutes pass on in heritage, like an eternal disease.”――Goethe, _Faust_.
In order now properly to understand our actual subject, viz. sexual ethics, we must state the fact that an action, as well as the motives which inspire it, may be either (1) _ethically positive_, i.e. good; (2) _ethically negative_, i.e. evil; or (3) _ethically indifferent_, i.e. without any relation to morals.
In their relationship to morals an action and its motive may be completely independent of one another, as we have already seen.
We must further note that there are various degrees of duty, and that from this cause conflicts may arise. There are duties towards one’s self, which serve to increase the worth, and particularly the social worth, of the individual by self-culture and education. In these days of effeminate culture it is too often forgotten that self-discipline and restraint, and even a certain degree of asceticism, fit the individual for freedom and happiness, while the craving for pleasure makes him useless and dependent.
Then there are duties towards the family and those nearer to us, towards the State, towards existing Humanity, and towards posterity. This last duty is the highest of all. Everything that we enjoy to-day in culture and knowledge we owe to the toil, the suffering, and often the martyrdom of our forefathers. Our most sacred duty is, therefore, to secure for our descendants a loftier, happier and worthier existence than our own.
Speaking generally, a rational system of morals must subordinate the welfare of the individual to that of the community at large. A man who is unprejudiced and possesses the ethical and social instinct will therefore hold it as a principle first of all to do no man any injury; then to develop his own individuality as highly as possible, which will be both for his own good and that of the community; and as far as in him lies to be of service to others and to Humanity.
From this we may derive the following commandment of sexual ethics:――
_Thou shalt take heed in thy sexual desire, in its manifestations in thy soul, and chiefly in thy sexual acts, that thou do no hurt to thyself nor another, nor, above all, to the race of men; but shalt strive with thy might to increase the worth of each and all._
II. SEXUAL ETHICS
Everything that we have up to the present said of ethics and the social sense in general applies also to sexual ethics in particular. The only essential thing is to discuss the matter without prejudice, and to put aside the ancient traditions of mystagogy, dogma, and custom. This should be comparatively easy when we consider our present-day conventions, hypocritical as they are to the point of nausea, and the manner in which they support the right of the stronger and other rank abuses under the false cloak of morality.
In itself the sexual desire is neither moral nor immoral. It is simply an instinct adapted to the reproduction of the species. The common confusion of sexuality with immorality is, I repeat, entirely erroneous. A man without sexual feeling must of course be extraordinarily “moral” in his sex relationships, and yet he can be the greatest scoundrel imaginable. His sexual coldness and indifference have not the smallest ethical value.
According to the definition given above, we may classify every sexual desire as ethically positive if it is of benefit to individuals, to society, and especially to the race (that is, to posterity); as ethically negative if it does injury to any or all of these; and as ethically indifferent if it neither does injury nor is of any service. At the same time we must observe the ethical gradation: (1) _the race_, (2) _society_, (3) _the more intimate surroundings or family_, and (4) the _individual self_.
When we come to examine the concrete cases more closely we find that the circumstances attendant upon the gratification of the sexual desire, and the consequences of this gratification, lead to conflicts with morality far more frequently than does the sexual act itself.
In the first place even the normal reproduction of human beings may become immoral, in that it may do injury to the race or to individuals. Malthus pointed out this fact. Habitable space upon the earth is limited, while, on the other hand, the procreative capacity of mankind is unlimited. If unlimited reproduction is permitted, it is possible that the existing space may be insufficient to meet the needs of the enormous multitudes of men which must result. The latter may then fall victims to famine and distress, as in the case of the Chinese, or the rabbits of Australia; and only disease, starvation, or slaughter can bring about a return to the normal condition. It must be obvious to every unbiassed person that this is not _moral_. And as there are harmless methods of regulating the number of births and to some extent the quality of the offspring, the just and proper use of these methods must be described as ethically positive. Everything is moral which makes for the happiness and well-being of society; everything immoral which prejudices or endangers it.
There can, however, be too few people in the world; and there is everywhere a great dearth of men and women wholly sound in mind and body, light-hearted, unselfish, industrious, persevering, intelligent, able and yet well-intentioned, peaceable, and honest.
On the other hand, we have a monstrous superabundance of feeble, sickly, mentally perverted, criminally disposed, idle, treacherous, vain, crafty, covetous, passionate, capricious, and untrustworthy individuals, whose claims upon others are inexhaustible, while their own services to society are either valueless or actually harmful.
While the first-mentioned class produce far more than they consume, it is appalling to think of the vast store of human energy and human life which goes to waste in sick-rooms, lunatic asylums, hospitals, and prisons. And if we look more closely we find outside these institutions, and under no restraint, a still vaster army of human sharks, who prey physically and mentally upon society, and are a burden upon the industrious community. The greater number of these useless pests owe their faults to an hereditarily defective constitution of the protoplasmic germs which brought them into being; and therefore a sound system of racial ethics demands rational selection in breeding.
Equally destructive, however, are external conditions and habits of life, such as the use of alcohol, resulting as they do in paralysis of energy, confusion of the mind, and degeneration of the cells (blastophthory).
* * * * *
The _libido sexualis_, or sexual desire in mankind is infinitely stronger than is necessary for the reproduction of the race. Man has no breeding season; he is always ready for sexual intercourse. Although the number of women in the aggregate only slightly exceeds that of men, the male has usually an instinctive inclination to polygamy. Luther accurately estimated the normal requirements of a healthy man in the prime of life at on the average two to three sexual connections in each week; and yet this is far in excess of what is necessary for the procreation of children in a monogamous marriage. It is, moreover, well known that a man can even considerably exceed the above number without injury to his health, and there are women whose needs in this respect are actually greater than those of men.
It therefore follows that the widespread artificial excitement of the sexual desire from motives of sensuality is harmful from the standpoint both of ethics and of social hygiene.
We cannot, it is true, be held responsible for a natural instinct inherited from our ancestors. But we must seek to subdue this instinct as far as possible, not to excite and stimulate it by artificial means. Already there is more than enough purposeless, and therefore ethically indifferent, sexual intercourse.
And yet Tolstoy is wrong in wishing to forbid this. As long as it does no actual harm we must tolerate it, the more so because the happiness of the individual and the cheerfulness with which he labours are so often dependent upon the normal satisfaction of his instincts.
Within the limits indicated above, the gratification of the sexual instinct, whether in the case of man or woman, is in itself ethically indifferent, provided it does not result in the procreation of children. We have already dealt with the ethical value of procreation, which depends upon the nature of the results expected. And we are therefore bold enough to declare that every sexual connection which does not injure either of the two persons who take part in it, or any third person, and which, moreover, can do no injury to the child which may be engendered by it, is in itself ethically indifferent, and cannot therefore be immoral.
We have certainly imposed considerable modifications in this sentence, for it is possible for a perfectly normal sexual connection to do untold injury, especially to the woman and the child she bears; so that an act which is in theory not immoral may become so in practice, or may give rise to grave moral conflicts. This often happens at the present time as the result of our prejudices, established customs, and unjust laws.
From the standpoint of sexual ethics the ideal marriage is undoubtedly a monogamous union, resting upon mutual and enduring affection and loyalty, and consummated by the birth of several children; a union in which the husband may be from six to twelve years older than the wife, and both must be robust in mind and body.
This ideal state of things is not as rare as our modern pessimists would have us believe, but neither is it especially common. Moreover, if this marriage is to reach that perfection which it can and must attain, it must be completely free, that is to say, both parties must be absolutely equal before the law, and no external compulsion other than that of common obligations towards the children must bind them to one another. To this end a complete separation of property, and a just and proper valuation of every service performed by the wife as well as the husband are of the first importance.
From the aforesaid it must by no means be inferred that every person is to yield without restraint to his sexual desires. Unfortunately this fundamentally false conception of free marriage and free love is at the present time widespread, and it cannot be too vigorously combated. In the first place, two persons are concerned in the sexual act, and any exercise of constraint by one upon the other is immoral and even criminal. The same holds true of every seduction.
Moreover, the highest freedom of man lies in his mastery of self. The only man who is truly free is the man who is able to control his lower instincts. The compulsion which must be exercised in a mutually happy sex relationship conformable to ethical principle must, however, be no external legal compulsion, but an inward self-repression. Fidelity in marriage must be a matter of mutual trust and yet a matter of honour. The State and the laws cannot compel it, and have never been able to do so; external constraint begets only hypocrisy, strife, and treachery. On the other hand the State and the law must, as time goes on, become more and more adapted to the protection of the helpless offspring of sex unions.
Both parents, in proportion to their fitness and ability, must be made responsible for the support of their children. It is in the highest degree immoral to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, and so to expose them and their mothers to public disgrace because of the fulfilment of a natural function. Is it not senseless, from the standpoint both of ethics and of law, to declare the existence of a child, and therefore of a human being, to be legal or illegal, or to speak of “natural children,” as if the others were unnatural! In what bureaucratic brain can such an idea have first arisen? It is only a remnant of a barbarous code of morals, based upon the grossest prejudice. Antiquity, alas, justifies everything――even crime!
* * * * *
Every woman who is healthy and strong should be proud of becoming a mother. If sexual intercourse were frankly and naturally treated as one of the most important acts in human life, the paternity of the child would be easily ascertainable. A woman should not wait until the birth of the child before speaking of it, but should promptly make a formal declaration as to its parentage to the registrar of births as soon as she becomes aware of her pregnancy. This would be easily practicable if all girls received proper instruction regarding the most important function of their lives. Instead of this, everything is now concealed from them, and they are brought up in gross ignorance of their sexual nature and duties.
If every pregnancy were at once legally recognised in this way, and if the law would determine the responsibilities of both parents towards their offspring, untrammelled by marriage laws and with the well-being of society as its only aim, the most pressing need of our time, from the standpoint of sexual ethics, would be satisfied. A complete equality can only be attained by naming all children after the mother. This is, moreover, the only rational and just system. It was formerly the custom among many primitive peoples.
None of these reforms, however, need in any way debar the formation of voluntary marriage contracts. Such contracts are, indeed, distinctly advisable, for the voluntary resolve of two people to remain faithful to one another, and to build up a permanent home for their children, is at once the best, truest, and most natural foundation of marriage.
But no one can foresee the future, and therefore simple facilities for divorce must be provided in case it becomes intolerable or inexpedient for the two persons to live together any longer. A divorce must take place if one or both of the parties wish for it. The State and the Law must only have the right to demand the fulfilment by the parents of all obligations towards their children. Marriage contracts for a fixed period are therefore as such not immoral. Such agreements have even been recommended by the Christian philosopher Charles Secrétan, in his book _Le Droit de la Femme_.
Sterile marriages, or other sex relationships, must be free. The law has no concern with them as long as they do not involve injury to any one’s property, health, or personal will. They are in themselves ethically indifferent.
On the other hand, all sexual intercourse which is bought or sold, such as marriage for money, the keeping of paid mistresses, and the whole system of prostitution, is immoral, because it is corrupting and devoid of love, and amounts simply to plunder by the aid of money. Prostitution is a hotbed of sexual vices and abnormal practices. By its means the sexual instinct is perverted and led astray into every imaginable bypath, while women are degraded in the basest of all slaveries.
Most repulsive of all, from the point of view of ethics, is the trade in prostitutes known as the “white slave traffic,” with its criminal devices for the enticement, intimidation, and seduction of young girls. The traffic in waitresses for cafés and beer-gardens is often little better. It is sad enough to reflect that these loathsome outgrowths of sexual immorality often still enjoy the protection of the State, and that many medical men defend their continuance under the pretext of hygiene. It is just in this very respect that we see that social hygiene and ethics are one and the same thing. Only the idiotic one-sidedness of your specialist could declare such a monstrosity as State-established prostitution to be hygienic. A system which makes for the mental and physical ruin of the race cannot be hygienic, and the delusion that by its aid men are protected from venereal disease is in direct conflict with the actual facts.
Moreover, sexual intercourse which is bought and sold has no relation to love. As a mode of gratifying the sex instinct it stands even lower in the moral scale than the habit of self-abuse. And any man who makes use of prostitution becomes an accomplice in creating this miserable class of outcasts whom we speak of as “unfortunates.” In short, whoremongery and prostitution are a social cancer, and therefore in the highest degree immoral. They furnish an instance of the manner in which money corrupts our whole civilisation. This corrupting influence, with its robbery of one man by another, makes itself felt in every department of life, and is exercised by every form of private capital.
The climax of immorality in the cult of Mammon is reached, however, by the capital employed in maintaining the two great evils of alcohol and prostitution, both of which act as bloodsuckers upon the vitality of the individual, the race, and all that is holiest in men. These two forms of capital work hand in hand, fashioning the goddess of love in the likeness of a lewd, sordid harlot, with the man as at once her ravisher and her victim. They are also the worst enemies of our descendants, whose procreation is often undertaken in a moment of intoxication, and whose lives are exposed to the risk of alcoholic degeneration or venereal disease!
These, therefore, are the chief foes of sexual morality: the struggle for wealth (as exemplified in the domination of private capital) and the use of alcohol. Let us combat both in the name of ethics. “_In hoc signo vincemus!_”
* * * * *
The following will, I hope, make my meaning still clearer.
In sexual ethics many diseases and abnormalities play, of course, a great part. First of all there are the venereal diseases, and
## particularly syphilis and gonorrhœa, which often destroy family
happiness and endanger the offspring. It is too often forgotten that chronic gonorrhœa can poison marriage, and that decay of the spinal marrow (locomotor ataxia) and the so-called softening of the brain (progressive or general paralysis) are nothing else than a very late result of syphilis, appearing from ten to twenty years after infection.
In a brief statistical discussion of the question, based upon medical information, I have shown that seventy-five per cent of venereal infections are acquired while in a state of alcoholic excitement. In the vast majority of these cases the infection is communicated by means of prostitution, which, as the result of the incredibly numerous and varied sex relationships of the women, serves simply as a vast manufactory of venereal diseases.