MORALITY

v. the mores

By Luther Allen

Too many people now-a-days. seem to have lost sight of the distinction between morality and the mores. And yet, in the United States in the course of the past half-century morality has won important battles when in conflict with the mores. At this writing just such a battle is in progress. The Supreme Court of the United States, upholding the principle of equality, is challenging the customs (and the attitudes and ways of thought associated with those customs) which prevail in race relations in certain sections of this country. In this area our morality is at war with

our mores.

Again and again in this era we have witnessed the victory of principle over custom, and over the ideas which have been put forward to justify immoral customs. For instance, in the early stages of the industrial revolution, employers seized upon Darwin's theory of "the survival of the fittest" to justify a laizzez-faire, dog-eat-dog economic and social way-of-things. In our century we have seen the abolition of child labor, of the sweat shop, of a way of life which ground down the little man, wore him out quickly, then cast him aside. Today we have the eight hour day, 'the five day week; we have workman's compensation laws, unemployment insurance, social security legislation, collective bargaining and a host of other laws designed to protect the little man. Karl Marx believed that it was impossible for a capitalist society to be 28

a just and humanitarian society. We have not created an Utopia, it is true. But there can be no doubt 'but that we have peacefully revolutionized the life of the average man. It ought to be added that in our time we have also seen the political and social emancipation of women. This was a great victory of morality over mores. In a number of vastly important areas, then, affecting the lives of millions, we have seen principles of freedom and justice prevail over former immoral customs. The struggle for a moral way of life continues.

In recent history we have witnessed the horrors which result from a denial of morality. In Fascism life is governed by "blood-thinking" instead of by principle. What can this mean but rule by collective passions? For the Fascist state the supreme law is that of "the folk", expressed in the institutions of the "State". There is no higher law. The only god is race. It is an orientation which exalts the mass-narcissism of a people and enflames all its preju dices and vanities while, at the same time, enslaving it. In Communism we. have to do with an explicitly bate:ialistic philosophy which also glorifies the masses and practically deifies mere historical process.. Communism specifically rejects morality. both personal and public. Volumes, whole libraries, have been written about Fascism and Communism; obviously I cannot go deeply into all that in the course of a brief article, nor am I properly equipped to do so

mattaching REVIEW

adequately. I would simply urge the reader to consider the alternatives to an adherence to moral principle, both in private and public life.

I am not writing in a chauvinistic spirit. Lord knows we Americans have our faults. Just because we have principles, and insofar as we do, we are capable of seeing our faults and doing something about them. Yet there are many barbarians among us for whom the mores constitute the sole morality, for whom custom and tradition are the law. To the barbarian all else is idealistic eye-wash.

Why is it that prosperous and comfortable people all over the country are seriously concerned about the plight of the Negro in our society? It is simply because these comfortable and prosperous people can put themselves in their neighbor's place, in spite of the differences between them. In fact, millions of people consider it their duty to do just that. To love their neighbor is their highest law. In most instances it is not as great a love as it might be. Yet they do recognize that supreme law, accept it as binding upon them, and to some extent try to live that law."

Even in the South there are great numbers of people deeply torn by the conflict within their breasts between the demands of morality and the demands of the Southern mores.

At this point it seems necessary for me to assure the reader that I anı no enemy of custom and traditicr., ne mores, just because I recognize a higher law than that, just because I see in custom and tradition the more primitive kind of rule. I wish only to point out that, judged on inoral grounds, customs and t¿dittions may be good or bad, or a miżture of both. I wish only to point out

~

"

!

•

that oftentimes morality does clash with the mores, and that when it does it is morality that we must support. It is too often supposed by the barbarians that the man who protess social injustice is anti-social. I submit that a man may be "anti" quite a few things in any given society and yet be "pro" infinitely more things in that society than he is against. In fact, it shows greater real concern for society to stick. one's neck out in opposition to some social evil, than to drift comfortably along, saying, with Dr. Pangloss: "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds". I would not wish to abolish baseball, the annual exchange of gifts at Christmas, the yearly Easter Parade, County Fairs,' flowers at funerals, birthday parties, church weddings, Bar Mitzvas, Thanksgiving turkeys, Hallow'een, and the thousand and one customs and traditions of public and private life. I would like only to eliminate the customary and traditional suspicions, hatreds and cruelties which also are to be found in our society. I do not for one moment believe that a time will ever arrive when all is perfect love and harmony. The fact remains that many of those suspicions and hatreds and cruelties can gradually be diminished or eliminated, and it is the task of all of us to do our small best to bring this about.

I imagine that the genuinely antisocial person is one who, because he himself has received a raw deal

} of some kind from society, therefore condemns the entire society because of the bad time it has given him. It seems to me that such an attitude isn't rational. It is just as false and · one-sided a view as that of Dr. Pangloss. There never has been and there never will be a completely just and humane society. We've all got to get along the best we can in

29