41. A “Society for Ethical Culture”

Why did Friedrich Nietzsche think himself mad about the big questions of human morality? It would have been much easier to listen to the philosophy professor from America Felix Adler on the "morality common to all good people" and proclaim what he heard to the German people as a doctrine of salvation. This is what an elite of German educated people did and founded a "Society for Ethical Culture", whose purpose is to make this "commonality" the mainstay of the lives of educated people. I note from the outset that the founders of the society include men whom I hold in high esteem. But the foundation itself stems from a backward view of life. Official philosophers, who today still regurgitate the old Kant concept—cripple, Nietzsche calls him—stand firmly on the standpoint of believing that there is such a thing as a morality “common to all good men”; modern thinking, which grasps its time and looks a little into the future, is beyond that. “Act in such a way that the principles of your actions can apply to all people”; that is the core sentence of Kant's moral doctrine. And this little saying rings in our ears in every key from the confessions of those who call themselves freethinkers, liberals, apostles of humanity etc. But today there is also a circle of people who know that this sentence is the death of all individual life, and that all cultural progress is based on living out individuality. What is special in every human being must emerge from him and become part of the development process. If one disregards this special something that everyone has for himself, then all that remains is a very banal "general" that cannot advance humanity by a single step. A few rules of expediency for mutual intercourse, that is all that can emerge as something “common to all good people”. But the ethical life of man in the true sense of the word only begins where these laws based on utility end. And this life can only come from the center of the personality and will never be the result of implanted doctrines. There is no such thing as general human ethics. Modern feeling must reply to the Kantian proposition with the exact opposite: Act as, according to your particular individuality, only you can act; then you will contribute most to the whole, for you will accomplish what another cannot. This is how all the people of whom history tells us have acted. That is why there are as many different moral concepts as there have been and are peoples, ages, indeed basically as many as there are individuals. And if this natural law were to be replaced by that which is considered correct by moral philosophers who think in the Kantian sense: a bland uniformity of all human action would be the necessary consequence. Such "general" moral principles have often been established; but no human being has ever organized his life according to them. And the realization that this is a business for idle minds should be the hallmark of all modern thinking.

I can well imagine the objections to these sentences. “That's pure anarchy!” “If everyone just lives their own life, then there is no question of working together!” If I had not really heard such objections, I would find it superfluous to even touch on them in a few words. We are talking here about the ethical life of man, as already mentioned. That which is below his level is not subject to moral standards; it is subject only to judgment according to its expediency and inexpediency. It is the task of social bodies to decide what is right; ethics has nothing to do with it. The state may watch over the usefulness or harmfulness of human actions and ensure that they are as expedient as possible; the ethical value of my actions is something that I as an individual have to settle with myself. There may be rules of expediency of action, and their observance may also be enforced by force; there are no rules of moral action. Anarchism is not to be rejected because it is immoral, but because it is inexpedient. In the realm of actual morality, only the principle can apply: live and let live. It is not surprising that the idea of "ethical societies" has found favor in America, where, in an eminently material cultural life, all thinking that goes beyond concern for the common necessities of life is lost. In Germany, however, where there is still a sense for the higher tasks of humanity, this should not be imitated. Where one thinks only of making physical life as comfortable as possible, one may look for the comfortable means of information of moral principles, because there is a lack of moral impulses. In a cultural area, however, where a true spiritual life prevails, the respective moral way of life can only be the result of the prevailing world view. My attitude in life will depend on how I view both nature and the human world. Custom is always a necessary consequence of the knowledge of an age, people or human being. That is why great individuals who proclaim new truths to their age will always give their way of life a new character. A messiah of a new truth is always also the herald of a new morality. A moralist who only has to give rules of conduct without knowing anything special about nature or people will never be heard. Therefore, there can be nothing more perverse than the measure adopted by the constituent assembly of the "ethical society" to try to influence the improvement of ethical life through the dissemination of moral writings. It is quite understandable to me that German writings have been completely ignored and that only translations of American books are being considered. In Germany one would not find much that is useful for this purpose. Books on ethics are only written here by school philosophers who are stuck in the unfashionable Kantian doctrine. But they write a school language that is completely incomprehensible to the circles on which the "ethical society" relies. Philosophers outside the school, however, do not establish moral principles. Here the moral-individualistic way of thinking has already become deeply ingrained. American books of this kind mostly contain trivialities that only sentimental old girls or immature schoolboys can be expected to read. The real German, learned or unlearned, philistine will buy some of them, and will have many praiseworthy things to say about them; he will not read them. Men of some knowledge, who have not been completely degraded in their thinking by our sad school philosophy, know that the majority of these books contain only wisdoms which, a hundred years ago, only made those of us who have moved on yawn.

But it is lamentable to hear that these dreary moral maxims are to be inculcated into the education of young people. Mr. von Gizycki has spoken the harshest words about the pedagogically reprehensible influence of purely confessional education. Hardly any modern thinker will argue with him about this. But what the denominations do with their moral principles is what the "ethical society" wants to imitate with general human principles. There and here, however, nothing is achieved but the killing of the individual and the subjugation of life through lifeless, rigid laws. The priests of religion are to be replaced by the priests of general human morality. But things are even worse with the latter than with the former. The denominational moral doctrines are the results of certain world views, which after all constitute the legitimate cultural content of mankind; the general human moral doctrine is a sum of commonplaces; they are scraps gathered from all possible moral views, which do not stand out from the background of a great contemporary view. Anyone who considers such things to be viable or even suitable for reforming the ethical content of our culture is giving a poor testimony to their psychological insight.

We are facing a reshaping of our entire worldview. All the pains that a generation struggling with the highest questions has to go through are weighing on us. We feel the agony of questioning; the happiness of solving the great riddle is to be brought to us by a Messiah whom we await daily. Our time of suffering will perhaps be long, for we have become demanding; and we will not allow ourselves to be fobbed off so soon. But this much is certain: whatever he will proclaim to us, the reformer: with the new knowledge will also come the new morality. Then we will also know how to organize our new life. To present the educated now with old cultural remnants as the eternal moral good of mankind is to blunt them to the perception of the ferment of the times and make them unsuitable for cooperation in the tasks of the near future.

Among the statutes of the “Society for Ethical Culture” are also some that will have a favorable effect. The initiation of a more lively discussion of religious issues, the striving to improve the living conditions of the poorer sections of the population are all things that deserve recognition. But all this has nothing to do with the basic tendencies of society, which want to push back all conceptions of ethical life to a level that has been overcome by modern consciousness. The spread of these basic ideas could only hinder the development of truly modern views.

In the Sunday supplement of the National-Zeitung of May 15, 1892, a kind of official program of the Society appeared, no doubt from the pen of one of its more outstanding founders. It reads: "The assertion that there is no general human morality is an insult which humanity cannot accept without suffering a loss of healthy self-esteem and belief in its destiny." And a few lines further on, the principle of "ethical culture" is presented as: "moral education ... solely from the conditions of existence and basic laws of human nature...". This is to look at the matter somewhat too superficially. Every educational period has its own view of the conditions of existence and basic laws of nature; its ethics are based on this view. This is as changeable as the other. Indeed, one should not approach attempts at a moral cure without knowing the powerful words from Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals", which proclaim the development of ethical truths loud and clear, even if we have no sense of abstract thinking. However, a mass prescription from the haze of the great moral pharmacy must be vigorously rejected by those preparing a better future.