IDEAL Versus PRACTICAL [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—In all discussions about the League, there is con- spicuous among its defenders and its critics alike a confusion of certain particular ideas which is most misleading. I call attention to it because it happens to be especially prominent in Sir Herbert Kealy's letter, of which the gist is that, " morally and ideally," only moral effectiveness counts ; " Practical " effectiveness matters not at all.
. The moral or ideal and the practical are here not only distinguished, but directly opposed. In actual fact there is a distinction, but no possible opposition. Materialism and
sentimentalism, however, are irreconcilably opposed ; but upon one thing they are agreed, and that is in identifying materialism -with practicality and sentimentalism with idealism. That is the fatal confusion.
Ipso facto, what is morally effective is practically effective, what is morally. injurious is practically injuriots. - There can be no progress except through the Effective pursuit of right ideals. Idealism sets the goal and 'gives the motive to action ; practicality is the guide which makes action effective, It does not deceive itself with the notion that the obstaales are of no account ; it lays itself out to overcome them, in the faith that nothing which ought to be is impossible of ultimate achievement. But to renounce practicality is not idealism, but sentimentalism, just as to renounce idealism is not practicality, but materialism.
Our ideals may, of course, be wrong, In the pursuit of any ideal we shall certainly fall into some errors of jndgement. But idealism and practicality are the father and mother of progress, whether moral or material. Materialism and sentimentalism are alike sterile.—I am, Sir, &c., A. D. INNEs.
Previous page
