Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind| Free online Book

Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind is a very good Book anyone can read for free.

Start Reading Now

 The misfortunes of human beings may be divided into two classes:

First, those inflicted by the non-human environment and, second,

those inflicted by other people. As mankind has progressed in

knowledge and technique, the second class has become a continually

increasing percentage of the total. In old times, famine, for example,

was due to natural causes, and although people did their best to

combat it, large numbers of them died of starvation. At the present

moment large parts of the world are faced with the threat of famine,

but although natural causes have contributed to the situation, the

principal causes are human. For six years the civilized nations of the

world devoted all their best energies to killing each other, and they

find it difficult suddenly to switch over to keeping each other alive.

Having destroyed harvests, dismantled agricultural machinery, and

disorganized shipping, they find it no easy matter to relieve the

shortage of crops in one place by means of a superabundance in

another, as would easily be done if the economic system were in

normal working order. As this illustration shows, it is now man that is

man's worst enemy. Nature, it is true, still sees to it that we are

mortal, but with the progress in medicine it will become more and

more common for people to live until they have had their fill of life. We

are supposed to wish to live for ever and to look forward to the

unending joys of heaven, of which, by miracle, the monotony will

never grow stale. But in fact, if you question any candid person who is

no longer young, he is very likely to tell you that, having tasted life in

this world, he has no wish to begin again as a 'new boy' in another.

For the future, therefore, it may be taken that much the most important evils that mankind have to consider are those which they

inflict upon each other through stupidity or malevolence or both.

I think that the evils that men inflict on each other, and by resection

upon themselves, have their main source in evil passions rather than

in ideas or beliefs. But ideas and principles that do harm are, as a rule,

though not always, cloaks for evil passions. In Lisbon when heretics

were publicly burnt, it sometimes happened that one of them, by a

particularly edifying recantation, would be granted the boon of being

strangled before being put into the flames. This would make the

spectators so furious that the authorities had great difficulty in

preventing them from lynching the penitent and burning him on their

own account. The spectacle of the writhing torments of the victims

was, in fact, one of the principal pleasures to which the populace

looked forward to enliven a somewhat drab existence. I cannot doubt

that this pleasure greatly contributed to the general belief that the

burning of heretics was a righteous act. The same sort of thing applies

to war. People who are vigorous and brutal often find war enjoyable,

provided that it is a victorious war and that there is not too much

interference with rape and plunder. This is a great help in persuading

people that wars are righteous. Dr Arnold, the hero of Tom Brown's

Schooldays, and the admired reformer of Public Schools, came across

some cranks who thought it a mistake to flog boys. Anyone reading his

outburst of furious indignation against this opinion will be forced to the

conclusion that he enjoyed inflicting floggings, and did not wish to be

deprived of this pleasure.

It would be easy to multiply instances in support of the thesis that

opinions which justify cruelty are inspired by cruel impulses. When we

pass in review the opinions of former times which are now recognized

as absurd, it will be found that nine times out of ten they were such as

to justify the infliction of suffering. Take, for instance, medical

practice. When anesthetics were invented they were thought to be

wicked as being an attempt to thwart God's will. Insanity was thought

to be due to diabolic possession, and it was believed that demons

inhabiting a madman could be driven out by inflicting pain upon him,

and so making them uncomfortable. In pursuit of this opinion, lunatics

were treated for years on end with systematic and conscientious

brutality. I cannot think of any instance of an erroneous medical

treatment that was agreeable rather than disagreeable to the patient.

Or again, take moral education. Consider how much brutality has been

justified by the rhyme:

A dog, a wife, and a walnut tree,

The more you beat them the better they be.

I have no experience of the moral effect of flagellation on walnut

trees, but no civilized person would now justify the rhyme as regards

wives. The reformative effect of punishment is a belief that dies hard,

chiefly I think, because it is so satisfying to our sadistic impulses.

But although passions have had more to do than beliefs with what is

amiss in human life, yet beliefs, especially where they are ancient and

systematic and embodied in organizations, have a great power of

delaying desirable changes of opinion and of influencing in the wrong

direction people who otherwise would have no strong feelings either

way. Since my subject is 'Ideas that have Harmed Mankind,' it is

especially harmful systems of beliefs that I shall consider.

The most obvious case as regards past history is constituted by the

beliefs which may be called religious or superstitious, according to

one's personal bias. It was supposed that human sacrifice would

improve the crops, at first for purely magical reasons, and then

because the blood of victims was thought pleasing to the gods, who

certainly were made in the image of their worshippers. We read in the

Old Testament that it was a religious duty to exterminate conquered

races completely, and that to spare even their cattle and sheep was an

impiety. Dark terrors and misfortunes in the life to come oppressed

the Egyptians and Etruscans, but never reached their full development

until the victory of Christianity. Gloomy saints who abstained from all

pleasures of sense, who lived in solitude in the desert, denying

themselves meat and wine and the society of women, were,

nevertheless, not obliged to abstain from all pleasures. The pleasures

of the mind were considered to be superior to those of the body, and a

high place among the pleasures of the mind was assigned to the

contemplation of the eternal tortures to which the pagans and heretics

would hereafter be subjected. It is one of the drawbacks to asceticism

that it sees no harm in pleasures other than those of sense, and yet, in

fact, not only the best pleasures, but also the very worst, are purely

mental. Consider the pleasures of Milton's Satan when he

contemplates the harm that he could do to man. As Milton makes him

say:

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a heav'n hell, a hell of heav'n.

and his psychology is not so very different from that of Tertullian,

exulting in the thought that he will be able to look out from heaven at

the sufferings of the damned. The ascetic depreciation of the pleasures

of sense has not promoted kindliness or tolerance, or any of the other

virtues that a non-superstitious outlook on human life would lead us to

desire. On the contrary, when a man tortures himself he feels that it

gives him a right to torture others, and inclines him to accept any

system of dogma by which this right is fortified.

The ascetic form of cruelty is, unfortunately, not confined to the

fiercer forms of Christian dogma, which are now seldom believed with

their former ferocity. The world has produced new and menacing forms

of the same psychological pattern. The Nazis in the days before they

achieved power lived laborious lives, involving much sacrifice of ease

and present pleasure in obedience to the belief in strenuousness and

Nietzsche's maxim that one should make oneself hard. Even after they

achieved power, the slogan 'guns rather than butter' still involved a

sacrifice of the pleasures of sense for the mental pleasures of

prospective victory - the very pleasures, in fact, with which Milton's

Satan consoles himself while tortured by the fires of hell. The same

mentality is to be found among earnest Communists, to whom luxury

is an evil, hard work the principal duty, and universal poverty the

means to the millennium. The combination of asceticism and cruelty

has not disappeared with the softening of Christian dogma, but has

taken on new forms hostile to Christianity. There is still much of the

same mentality: mankind are divided into saints and sinners; the

saints are to achieve bliss in the Nazi or Communists heaven, while the

sinners are to be liquidated, or to suffer such pains as human beings

can inflict in concentration camps - inferior, of course, to those which

Omnipotence was thought to inflict in hell, but the worst that human

beings with their limited powers are able to achieve. There is still, for

the saints, a hard period of probation followed by 'the shout of them

that triumph, the song of them that feast', as the Christian hymn says

in describing the joys of heaven.

As this psychological pattern seems so persistent and so capable of

clothing itself in completely new mantles of dogma, it must have its

roots somewhat deep in human nature. This is the kind of matter that

is studied by psycho-analysts, and while I am very far from

subscribing to all their doctrines, I think that their general methods are

important if we wish to seek out the source of evil in our innermost

depths. The twin conceptions of sin and vindictive punishment seem to

be at the root of much that is most vigorous, both in religion and

politics. I cannot believe, as some psycho-analysts do, that the feeling

of sin is innate, though I believe it to be a product of very early

infancy. I think that, if this feeling could be eradicated, the amount of

cruelty in the world would be very greatly diminished. Given that we

are all sinners and that we all deserve punishment, there is evidently

much to be said for a system that causes the punishment to fall upon

others than ourselves. Calvinists, by the fiat of undeserved mercy,

would go to heaven, and their feelings that sin deserved punishment

would receive a merely vicarious satisfaction. Communists have a

similar outlook. When we are born we do not choose whether we are

to be born capitalists or proletarians, but if the latter we are among

the elect, and if the former we are not Without any choice on our own

parts, by the working of economic determinism, we are fated to be on

the right side in the one case, and on the wrong side in the other.

Marx'' father became a Christian when Marx was a little boy, and

some, at least, of the dogmas he must have then accepted seem to

have borne fruit in his son's psychology.

One of the odd effects of the importance which each of u attaches to

himself, is that we tend to imagine our own good or evil fortune to be

the purpose of other people's actions. I you pass in a train a field

containing grazing cows, you ma sometimes see them running away in

terror as the train passes. The cow, if it were a metaphysician, would

argue: 'Everything in my own desires and hopes and fears has

reference to myself; hence by induction I conclude that everything in

the universe has reference to myself. This noisy train, therefore,

intends to do me either good or evil. I cannot suppose that it intends

to do me good, since it comes in such a terrifying form, and therefore,

as a prudent cow, I shall endeavor to escape from it.' If you were to

explain to this metaphysical ruminant that the train has no intention of

leaving the rails, and is totally indifferent to the fate of the cow, the

poor beast would be bewildered by anything so unnatural. The train

that wishes her neither well nor ill would seem more cold and more

abysmally horrifying than a train that wished her ill. Just this has

happened with human beings. The course of nature brings them

sometimes good fortune, sometimes evil. They cannot believe that this

happens by accident. The cow, having known of a companion which

had strayed on to the railway line and been killed by a train, would

pursue her philosophical reflections, if she were endowed with that

moderate degree of intelligence that characterizes most human beings,

to the point of concluding that the unfortunate cow had been punished

for sin by the god of the railway. She would be glad when his priests

put fences along the line, and would warn younger and friskier cows

never to avail themselves of accidental openings in the fence, since

the wages of sin is death. By similar myths men have succeeded,

without sacrificing their selfimportance, in explaining many of the

misfortunes to which they are subject. But sometimes misfortune

befalls the wholly virtuous, and what are we to say in this case? We

shall still be prevented by our feeling that we must be the centre of

the universe from admitting that misfortune has merely happened to

us without anybody's intending it, and since we are not wicked by

hypothesis, our misfortune must be due to somebody's malevolence,

that is to say, to somebody wishing to injure us from mere hatred and

not from the hope of any advantage to himself. It was this state of

mind that gave rise to demonology, and the belief in witchcraft and

black magic. The witch is a person who injures her neighbors from

sheer hatred, not from any hope of gain. The belief in witchcraft, until

about the middle of the seventeenth century, afforded a most

satisfying outlet for the delicious emotion of self-righteous cruelty.

There was Biblical warrant for the belief, since the Bible says: 'Thou

shalt not suffer a witch to live.' And on this ground the Inquisition

punished not only witches, but those who did not believe in the

possibility of witchcraft, since to disbelieve it was heresy. Science, by

giving some insight into natural causation, dissipated the belief in

magic, but could not wholly dispel the fear and sense of insecurity that

had given rise to it. In modem times, these same emotions find an

outlet in fear of foreign nations, an outlet which, it must be confessed,

requires not much in the way of superstitious support.

One of the most powerful sources of false belief is envy. In any small

town you will find, if you question the comparatively well-todo, that

they all exaggerate their neighbors' incomes, which gives them an

opportunity to justify an accusation of meanness. The jealousies of

women are proverbial among men, but in any large office you will find

exactly the same kind of jealousy among male ofiicials. When one of

them secures promotion the others will say: 'Humph! So-and so knows

how to make up to the big men. I could have riser quite as fast as he

has if I had chosen to debase myself by using the sycophantic arts of

which he is not ashamed. No doubt his work has a flashy brilliance, but

it lacks solidly, and sooner or later the authorities will find out their

mistake.' So all the mediocre men will say if a really able man is

allowed to rise as fast as his abilities deserve, and that is why there is

a tendency to adopt the rule of seniority, which, since it has nothing to

do with merit, does not give rise to the same envious discontent.

One of the most unfortunate results of our proneness to envy is that

it has caused a complete misconception of economic selfinterest, both

individual and national. I will illustrate by a parable. There was once

upon a time a medium sized town containing a number of butchers, a

number of bakers, and so forth. One butcher, who was exceptionally

energetic, decided that he would make much larger profits if all the

other butchers were ruined and he became a monopolist. By

systematically under-selling them he succeeded in his object, though

his losses meanwhile had almost exhausted his command of capital

and credit. At the same time an energetic baker had had the same

idea and had pursued it to a similar successful conclusion. In every

trade which lived by selling goods to consumers the same thing had

happened. Each of the successful monopolists had a happy anticipation

of making a fortune, but unfortunately the ruined butchers were no

longer in the position to buy bread, and the ruined bakers were no

longer in the position to buy meat. Their employees had had to be

dismissed and had gone elsewhere. The consequence was that,

although the butcher and the baker each had a monopoly, they sold

less than they had done in the old days. They had forgotten that while

a man may be injured by his competitors he is benefited by his

customers, and that customers become more numerous when the

general level of prosperity is increased. Envy had made them

concentrate their attention upon competitors and forget altogether the

aspect of their prosperity that depended upon customers.

This is a fable, and the town of which I have been speaking never

existed, but substitute for a town the world, and for individuals

nations, and you will have a perfect picture of the economic policy

universally pursued in the present day. Every nation is persuaded that

its economic interest is opposed to that of every other nation, and that

it must profit if other nations are reduced to destitution. During the

first World War, I used to hear English people saying how immensely

British trade would benefit from the destruction of German trade,

which was to be one of the principal fruits of our victory. After the war,

although we should have liked to find a market on the Continent of

Europe, and although the industrial life of Western Europe depended

upon coal from the Ruhr, we could not bring ourselves to allow the

Ruhr coal industry to produce more than a tiny fraction of what it

produced before the Germans were defeated. The whole philosophy of

economic nationalism, which is now universal throughout the world, is

based upon the false belief that the economic interest of one nation is

necessarily opposed to that of another. This false belief, by producing

international hatreds and rivalries, is a cause of war, and in this way

tends to make itself true, since when war has once broken out the

conflict of national interests becomes only too real. If you try to

explain to someone, say, in the steel industry, that possibly prosperity

in other countries might be advantageous to him, you will find it quite

impossible to make him see the argument, because the only foreigners

of whom he is vividly aware are his competitors in the steel industry.

Other foreigners are shadowy beings in whom he has no emotional

interest. This is the psychological root of economic nationalism, and

war, and manmade starvation, and all the other evils which will bring

our civilization to a disastrous and disgraceful end unless men can be

induced to take a wider and less hysterical view of their mutual

relations.

Another passion which gives rise to false beliefs that are politically

harmful is pride - pride of nationally, race, sex, class, or creed. When I

was young France was still regarded as the traditional enemy of

England, and I gathered as an unquestionable truth that one

Englishman could defeat three Frenchmen. When Germany became the

enemy this belief was modified and English people ceased to mention

derisively the French propensity for eating frogs. But in spite of

governmental efforts, I think few Englishmen succeeded in genuinely

regarding the French as their equals. Americans and Englishmen, when

they become acquainted with the Balkans, feel an astonished contempt

when they study the mutual enmities of Bulgarians and Serbs, or

Hungarians and Rumanians. It is evident to them that these enmities

are absurd and that the belief of each little nation in its own

superiority has no objective basis. But most of them are quite unable

to see that the national pride of a Great Power is essentially as

unjustifiable as that of a little Balkan country.

Pride of race is even more harmful than national pride. When I was in

China I was struck by the fact that cultivated Chinese were perhaps

more highly civilized than any other human beings that it has been my

good fortune to meet. Nevertheless, I found numbers of gross and

ignorant white men who despised even the best of the Chinese solely

because their skins were yellow. In general, the British were more to

blame in this than the Americans, but there were exceptions. I was

once in the company of a Chinese scholar of vast learning, not only of

the traditional Chinese kind, but also of the kind taught in Western

universities, a man with a breadth of culture which I scarcely hoped to

equal. He and I went together into a garage to hire a motor car. The

garage proprietor was a bad type of American, who treated my

Chinese friend like dirt, contemptuously accused him of being

Japanese, and made my blood boil by his ignorant malevolence. The

similar attitude of the English in India, exacerbated by their political

power, was one of the main causes of the friction that arose in that

country between the British and the educated Indians. The superiority

of one race to another is hardly ever believed in for any good reason.

Where the belief persists it is kept alive by military supremacy. So long

as the Japanese were victorious, they entertained a contempt for the

white man, which was the counterpart of the contempt that the white

man had felt for them while they were weak. Sometimes, however, the

feeling of superiority has nothing to do with military prowess. The

Greeks despised the barbarians, even at times when the barbarians

surpassed them in warlike strength. The more enlightened among the

Greeks held that slavery was justifiable so long as the masters were

Greek and the slaves barbarian, but that otherwise it was contrary to

nature. The Jews had, in antiquity, a quite peculiar belief in their own

racial superiority; ever since Christianity became the religion of the

State Gentiles have had an equally irrational belief in their superiority

to Jews. Beliefs of this kind do infinite harm, and it should be, but is

not, one of the aims of education to eradicate them. I spoke a moment

ago about the attitude of superiority that Englishmen have permitted

themselves in their dealings with the inhabitants of India, which was

naturally resented in that country, but the caste system arose as a

result of successive invasions by 'superior' races from the North, and is

every bit as objectionable as white arrogance.

The belief in the superiority of the male sex, which has now officially

died out in Western nations, is a curious example of the sin of pride.

There was, I think, never any reason to believe in any innate

superiority of the male, except his superior muscle. I remember once

going to a place where they kept a number of pedigree bulls, and what

made a bull illustrious was the milk-giving qualities of his female

ancestors. But if bulls had drawn up the pedigrees they would have

been very different. Nothing would have been said about the female

ancestors, except that they were docile and virtuous, whereas the

male ancestors would have been celebrated for their supremacy in

battle. In the case of cattle we can take a disinterested view of the

relative merits of the sexes, but in the case of our own species we find

this more difficult. Male superiority in former days was easily

demonstrated, because if a woman questioned her husband's he could

beat her. From superiority in this respect others were thought to

follow. Men were more reasonable than women, more inventive, less

swayed by their emotions, and so on. Anatomists, until the women had

the vote, developed a number of ingenious arguments from the study

of the brain to show that men's intellectual capacities must be greater

than women's. Each of these arguments in turn was proved to be

fallacious, but it always gave place to another from which the same

conclusion would follow. It used to be held that the male fetus

acquires a soul after six weeks, but the female only after three

months. This opinion also has been abandoned since women have had

the vote. Thomas Aquinas states parenthetically, as something entirely

obvious, that men are more rational than women. For my part, I see

no evidence of this. Some few individuals have some slight

glimmerings of rationality in some directions, but so far as my

observations go, such glimmerings are no commoner among men than

among women.

Male domination has had some very unfortunate effects. It made the

most intimate of human relations, that of marriage, one of master and

slave, instead of one between equal partners. It made it unnecessary

for a man to please a woman in order to acquire her as his wife, and

thus confined the arts of courtship to irregular relations. By the

seclusion which it forced upon respectable women it made them dull

and uninteresting; the only women who could be interesting and

adventurous were social outcasts. Owing to the dullness of respectable

women, the most civilized men in the most civilized countries often

became homosexual. Owing to the fact that there was no equality in

marriage men became confirmed in domineering habits. All this has

now more or less ended in civilized countries, but it will be a long time

before either men or women learn to adapt their behavior completely

to the new state of affairs. Emancipation always has at first certain

bad effects; it leaves former superiors sore and former inferiors selfassertive.

But it is to be hoped that time will bring adjustment in this

matter as in others.

Another kind of superiority which is rapidly disappearing is that of

class, which now survives only in Soviet Russia. In that country the

son of a proletarian has advantages over the son of a bourgeois, but

elsewhere such hereditary privileges are regarded as unjust. The

disappearance of class distinction is, however, far from complete. In

America everybody is of opinion that he has no social superiors, since

all men are equal, but he does not admit that he has no social

inferiors, for, from the time of Jefferson onward, the doctrine that all

men are equal applies only upwards, not downwards. There is on this

subject a profound and widespread hypocrisy whenever people talk in

general terms. What they really think and feel can be discovered by

reading second-rate novels, where one finds that it is a dreadful thing

to be born on the wrong side of the tracks, and that there is as much

fuss about a mesalliance as there used to be in a small German Court.

So long as great inequalities of wealth survive it is not easy to see how

this can be otherwise. In England, where snobbery is deeply ingrained,

the equalization of incomes which has been brought about by the war

has had a profound effect, and among the young the snobbery of their

elders has begun to seem somewhat ridiculous. There is still a very

large amount of regrettable snobbery in England, but it is connected

more with education and manner of speech than with income or with

social status in the old sense.

Pride of creed is another variety of the same kind of feeling. When I

had recently returned from China I lectured on that country to a

number of women's clubs in America. There was always one elderly

woman who appeared to be sleeping throughout the lecture, but at the

end would ask me, somewhat portentously, why I had omitted to

mention that the Chinese, being heathen, could of course have no

virtues. I imagine that the Mormons of Salt Lake City must have had a

similar attitude when non-Mormons were first admitted among them.

Throughout the Middle Ages, Christians and Mohammedans were

entirely persuaded of each other's wickedness and were incapable of

doubting their own superiority.

All these are pleasant ways of feeling 'grand'. In order to be happy we

require all kinds of supports to our self-esteem. We are human beings,

therefore human beings are the purpose of creation. We are

Americans, therefore America is God's own country. We are white, and

therefore God cursed Ham and his descendants who were black. We

are Protestant or Catholic, as the case may be, therefore Catholics or

Protestants, as the case may be, are an abomination. We are male,

and therefore women are unreasonable; or female, and therefore men

are brutes. We are Easterners, and therefore the West is wild and

woolly; or Westerners, and therefore the East is effete. We work with

our brains, and therefore it is the educated classes that are important;

or we work with our hands, and therefore manual labor alone gives

dignity. Finally, and above all, we each have one merit which is

entirely unique, we are Ourself. With these comforting reflections we

go out to do battle with the world; without them our courage might

fail. Without them, as things are, we should feel inferior because we

have not learnt the sentiment of equality. If we could feel genuinely

that we are the equals of our neighbors, neither their betters nor their

inferiors, perhaps life would become less of a battle, and we should

need less in the way of intoxicating myth to give us Dutch courage.

One of the most interesting and harmful delusions to which men and

nations can be subjected, is that of imagining themselves special

instruments of the Divine Will. We know that when the Israelites

invaded the Promised Land it was they who were fulfilling the Divine

Purpose, and not the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the

Canaanites, the Perizites, the Hivites, or the Jebbusites. Perhaps if

these others had written long history books the matter might have

looked a little different. In fact, the Hittites did leave some

inscriptions, from which you would never guess what abandoned

wretches they were. It was discovered, 'after the fact', that Rome was

destined by the gods for the conquest of the world. Then came Islam

with its fanatical belief that every soldier dying in battle for the True

Faith went straight to a Paradise more attractive than that of the

Christians, as houris are more attractive than harps. Cromwell was

persuaded that he was the Divinely appointed instrument of justice for

suppressing Catholics and malignants. Andrew Jackson was the agent

of Manifest Destiny in freeing North America from the incubus of

Sabbath-breaking Spaniards. In our day, the sword of the Lord has

been put into the hands of the Marxists. Hegel thought that the

Dialectic with fatalistic logic had given supremacy to Germany.

'No,'said Marx,'not to Germany,but to the Proletariat'. This doctrine

has kinship with the earlier doctrines of the Chosen People and

Manifest Destiny. In its character of fatalism it has viewed the struggle

of opponent' as one against destiny, and argued that therefore the

wise man would put himself on the winning side as quickly as possible.

That is why this argument is such a useful one politically. The only

objection to it is that it assumes a knowledge of the Divine purposes to

which no rational man can lay claim, and that in the execution of them

it justifies a ruthless cruelty which would be condemned if our

programme had a merely mundane origin. It is good to know that God

is on our side, but a little confusing when you find the enemy equally

con vinced of the opposite. To quote the immortal lines of the poet

during the first World War:

Gott strafe England, and God save the King.

God this, and God that, and God the other thing.

'Good God,' said God, 'I've got my work cut out.'

Belief in a Divine mission is one of the many forms of certainty that

have afflicted the human race. I think perhaps one of the wisest things

ever said was when Cromwell said to the Scots before the battle of

Dunbar: 'I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that

you may be mistaken.' But the Scots did not, and so he had to defeat

them in battle. It is a pity that Cromwell never addressed the same

remark to himself. Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted

upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about

something which, in fact, was false. To know the truth is more difficult

than most men suppose, and to act with ruthless determination in the

belief that truth is the monopoly of their party is to invite disaster.

Long calculations that certain evil in the present is worth inflicting for

the sake of some doubtful benefit in the future are always to be

viewed with suspicion, for, as Shakespeare says: 'What's to come is

still unsure.' Even the shrewdest men are apt to be wildly astray if

they prophesy so much as ten years ahead. Some people will consider

this doctrine immoral, but after all it is the Gospel which says 'take no

thought for the morrow'.

In public, as in private life, the important thing is tolerance and

kindliness, without the presumption of a superhuman ability to read

the future.

Instead of calling this essay 'Ideas that have harmed mankind', I

might perhaps have called it simply 'Ideas have harmed mankind', for,

seeing that the future cannot be foretold and that there is an almost

endless variety of possible beliefs about it, the chance that any belief

which a man may hold may be true is very slender. Whatever you

think is going to happen ten years hence, unless it is something like

the sun rising tomorrow that has nothing to do with human relations,

you are almost sure to be wrong. I find this thought consoling when I

remember some gloomy prophesies of which I myself have rashly been

guilty.

But you will say: how is statesmanship possible except on the

assumption that the future can be to some extent foretold} I admit

that some degree of prevision is necessary, and I am not suggesting

that we are completely ignorant. It is a fair prophecy that if you tell a

man he is a knave and a fool he will not love you, and it is a fair

prophecy that if you say the same thing to seventy million people they

will not love you. It is safe to assume that cutthroat competition will

not produce a feeling of good fellowship between the competitors. It is

highly probable that if two States equipped with modern armament

face each other across a frontier, and if their leading statesmen devote

themselves to mutual insults, the population of each side will in time

become nervous, and one side will attack for fear of the other doing

so. It is safe to assume that a great modern war will not raise the level

of prosperity even among the victors. Such generalizations are not

difficult to know. What is difficult is to foresee in detail the long-run

consequences of a concrete policy. Bismarck with extreme astuteness

won three wars and unified Germany. The long run result of his policy

has been that Germany has suffered two colossal defeats. These

resulted because he taught Germans to be indifferent to the interests

of all countries except Germany, and generated an aggressive spirit

which in the end united the world against his successors. Selfishness

beyond a point, whether individual or national, is not wise. It may with

luck succeed, but if it fails failure is terrible. Few men will run this risk

unless they are supported by a theory, for it is only theory that makes

men completely incautious.

Passing from the moral to the purely intellectual point of view, we

have to ask ourselves what social science can do in the way of

establishing such causal laws as should be a help to statesmen in

making political decisions. Some things of real importance have begun

to be known, for example how to avoid slumps and largescale

unemployment such as afflicted the world after the last war. It is also

now generally known by those who have taken the trouble to look into

the matter that only an international government can prevent war, and

that civilization is hardly likely to survive more than one more great

war, if that. But although these things are known, the knowledge is

not effective; it has not penetrated to the great masses of men, and it

is not strong enough to control sinister interests. There is, in fact, a

great deal more social science than politicians are willing or able to

apply. Some people attribute this failure to democracy, but-it seems to

me to be more marked in autocracy than anywhere else. Belief in

democracy, however, like any other belief, may be carried to the point

where it becomes fanatical, and therefore harmful. A democrat need

not believe that the majority will always decide wisely; what he must

believe is that the decision of the majority, whether wise or unwise,

must be accepted until such time as the majority decides otherwise.

And this he believes not from any mystic conception of the wisdom of

the plain man, but as the best practical device for putting the reign of

law in place of the reign of arbitrary force. Nor does the democrat

necessarily believe that democracy is the best system always and

everywhere. There are many nations which lack the self-restraint and

political experience that are required for the success of parliamentary

institutions, where the democrat, while he would wish them to acquire

the necessary political education, will recognize that it is useless to

thrust upon them prematurely a system which is almost certain to

break down. In politics, as elsewhere, it does not do to deal in

absolutes; what is good in one time and place may be bad in another,

and what satisfies the political instincts of one nation may to another

seem wholly futile. The general aim of the democrat is to substitute

government by general assent for government by force, but this

requires a population that has undergone a certain kind of training.

Given a nation divided into two nearly equal portions which hate each

other and long to fly at each other's throats, that portion which is just

less than half will not submit tamely to the domination of the other

portion, nor will the portion which is just more than half show, in the

moment of victory, the kind of moderation which might heal the

breach.

The world at the present day stands in need of two kinds of things.

On the one hand, organization - political organization for the

elimination of wars, economic organization to enable men to work

productively, especially in the countries that have been devastated by

war, educational organization to generate a sane internationalism. On

the other hand it needs certain moral qualities the qualities which have

been advocated by moralists for many ages, but hitherto with little

success. The qualities most needed are charity and tolerance, not

some form of fanatical faith such as is offered to us by the various

rampant isms. I think these two aims, the organizational and the

ethical, are closely interwoven; given either the other would soon

follow. But, in effect, if the world is to move in the right direction it will

have to move simultaneously in both respects. There will have to be a

gradual lessening of the evil passions which are the natural aftermath

of war, and a gradual increase of the organizations by means of which

mankind can bring each other mutual help. There will have to be a

realization at once intellectual and moral that we are all one family,

and that the happiness of no one branch of this family can be built

securely upon the ruin of another. At the present time, moral defects

stand in the way of clear thinking, and muddled thinking encourages

moral defects. Perhaps, though I scarcely dare to hope it, the

hydrogen bomb will terrify mankind into sanity and tolerance. If this

should happen we shall have reason to bless its inventors.