268 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



THE NATURE OF POLITICAL 

 AUTHORITY. 



PROF. R. T. ELY, in an article en- 

 titled Fundamental Beliefs in ray 

 Social Philosophy, contributed to the 

 October Forum, raises the question, 

 " What is the source and sanction of 

 the authority of the state?" "Is the 

 state," he fines on to ask, " a mereagp^re- 

 gate of individuals accomplishing their 

 purpose simply by brute force ? Does 

 might make I'ight ? If it does, then is 

 not the question between anarchy and 

 its opponents simply a question of su- 

 perior force? But if might does not 

 make right, what does make right? 

 Has the state an ethical nature? If 

 the state is itself nonethical, can the 

 power which it exercises have an eth- 

 ical element ? But if it is devoid of an 

 ethical element, can it rest upon any- 

 thing less than mere brute force ? " This 

 is rather a long string of questions, and 

 the professor tells us that he will not at- 

 tempt to answer them ; but he observes 

 that if tlie state is a divine institution 

 and derives its authority from God, " then 

 we have a ground of opposition to an- 

 archy." Otherwise he evidently means 

 us to infer our ground is very weak. 



It seems to us that this is a good ex- 

 ample of the confusing of a compara- 

 tively simple matter by the introduction 

 of what Auguste Corate would have 

 called "metaphssical " considerations. 

 Let us take the several questions as they 

 come. "Is the state a mere aggregate 

 of individuals accomplishing their pur- 

 pose simply by brute force ? " Answer : 

 No, the state is an aggregate of indi- 

 viduals whose views in regard to what 

 is a desirable constitution of society are 

 in the main harmonious, and wlio have 

 no occasion to use brute force except 

 upon a certain limited number of stupid 

 otfenders against laws which, in their 



general operation, make for the good of 

 the community as a whole. " Does 

 might make right?" Answer: No, 

 might does not make right, but it is an 

 excellent thing for giving effect to what 

 the upholders of social order believe to 

 be right. " If it does, then is not the 

 question between anarchy and its op- 

 ponents simply a question of superior 

 force?" Answer: No, for if might 

 mal'es right (which is the hypothesis), 

 then right as well as might is on the 

 side of the state. " But if might does 

 not make right, what does make right? " 

 Answer : The only way to " make right " 

 is to do right actions. Right is some- 

 thing that can never be more than ap- 

 proximately attained ; but we hold that 

 social order is right because it secures, 

 or at least makes possible, the happiness 

 of the great majority of human beings, 

 and deprives none of happiness save 

 those whose happiness involves unhap- 

 piness to others. " Has the state an 

 ethical nature?" We wonder whether 

 Prof. Ely stopped to consider just what 

 he meant by tliis question. " The state " 

 hHS no character apart from the indi- 

 viduals who represent and carry on its 

 action. If it be asked whether these 

 ])ersons, tlie legislature, the executive, 

 the judiciary, have ethical aims in view, 

 we may answer that in general they 

 have that is to say, they make, ad- 

 minister, and interpret laws with a gen- 

 eral view to the good of the community 

 and to principles of equity between the 

 individual members thereof. So far as 

 this underlying intention is present, the 

 action of the state is ethical ; so far as it 

 is absent, is it nonethical. The obliga- 

 tion to be governed by such an inten- 

 tion is one tliat rests upon each person 

 liaving public functions to perform in- 

 dividually. He either feels or does not 

 feel individually a sense of duty in con- 



