25. Inconsistency with the principles of the Moral Philosophy
We have seen that the principle on which Dr. Paley’s Moral Philosophy decides the lawfulness of war is that it is expedient. I know not how this argument accords with some of the statements of the Evidences of Christianity:
We are there told that the non-resisting character “possesses the highest intrinsic value” and the “most of true worth;”
that it “prevents the great disturbances of human happiness,” and destroys “the great sources of human misery,” and that it “contributes most to the happiness and tranquillity of social life.”
And in what then does expediency consist, if the non-resisting character is not expedient?
Dr. Paley says again, in relation to the immense mischief and bloodshed arising from the violation of Christian duty,
“We do not say that no evil can exceed this, nor any possible advantage compensate it, but we say that a loss which affects all will scarcely be made up to the common stock of human happiness, by any benefit that can be procured to a single nation.”
And is not therefore the violation of the duty inexpedient as well as criminal?
He says again that the warlike character “is, in its general effects, prejudicial to human happiness,” and therefore, surely, it is inexpedient.