Such parents would be regarded as lacking all public
spirit, and as willing to endanger the community for
their private pleasure. But gradually it would
appear that the state remained intact, and the crops
were no worse than in former years. Then, by
a fiction, a child would be deemed to have been sacrificed
if it was solemnly dedicated to agriculture or some
other work of national importance chosen by the chief.
It would be many generations before the child would
be allowed to choose its own occupation after it had
grown old enough to know its own tastes and capacities.
And during all those generations, children would be
reminded that only an act of grace had allowed them
to live at all, and would exist under the shadow of
a purely imaginary duty to the state.
The position of those parents who first disbelieved
in the utility of infant sacrifice illustrates all
the difficulties which arise in connection with the
adjustment of individual freedom to public control.
The authorities, believing the sacrifice necessary
for the good of the community, were bound to insist
upon it; the parents, believing it useless, were equally
bound to do everything in their power toward saving
the child. How ought both parties to act in such
a case?
The duty of the skeptical parent is plain: to
save the child by any possible means, to preach the
uselessness of the sacrifice in season and out of
season, and to endure patiently whatever penalty the
law may indict for evasion. But the duty of
the authorities is far less clear. So long as
they remain firmly persuaded that the universal sacrifice
of the first-born is indispensable, they are bound
to persecute those who seek to undermine this belief.
But they will, if they are conscientious, very carefully
examine the arguments of opponents, and be willing
in advance to admit that these arguments may
be sound. They will carefully search their own
hearts to see whether hatred of children or pleasure
in cruelty has anything to do with their belief.
They will remember that in the past history of Khai-muh
there are innumerable instances of beliefs, now known
to be false, on account of which those who disagreed
with the prevalent view were put to death. Finally
they will reflect that, though errors which are traditional
are often wide-spread, new beliefs seldom win acceptance
unless they are nearer to the truth than what they
replace; and they will conclude that a new belief
is probably either an advance, or so unlikely to become
common as to be innocuous. All these considerations
will make them hesitate before they resort to punishment.
II
Copyrights
Political Ideals from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.
