One further point demands attention.  We naturally ask what the grounds were on which the ethical ideals were commonly supposed to have authority.  So far as my knowledge goes, this question received almost no consideration by the ordinary person, and but little from the moralist.  Old Japan was not accustomed to ask “Why?” It accepted everything on the authority of the teacher, as children do, and as all primitive peoples do.  There was little or no thought as to the source of the moral ideals or as to the nature or the function of the social sanctions.  If, as in a few instances, the questions were raised as to their authority, the reply ordinarily would be that they had derived their teachings from ancient times.  And, if the matter were pressed, it would be argued that the most ancient times were nearer the beginning of men, and, therefore, nearer to Heaven, which decreed that all the duties and customs of men; in the final resort, therefore, authority would be attributed to Heaven.  But such a questioner was rare.  Moral law was unhesitatingly accepted on the authority of the teacher, and no uncomfortable questions were asked.  It is easy to see that both of the pivotal moral ideals, i.e., loyalty and filial piety, would support this unquestioning habit of mind, for to ask questions as to authority is the beginning both of disloyalty to the master and of irreverence to the parents and ancestors.

The whole social order, being one of authority, unquestioned and absolute, moral standards were accepted on the ipse dixit of great teachers.

In closing, we revert to our ever-recurring question:  Are the moral characteristics wherein the Japanese differ from other races inherent and necessary, as are their physiological characteristics, or are they incidental and transient, liable to transformation?  Light has been thrown on this problem by every illustration adduced.  We have seen in detail that every characteristically Japanese moral trait is due to the nature of her past social order, and is changing With that order.  Racial moral traits, therefore, are not due to inherent nature, to essential character, to brain structure, nor are they transmitted from father to son by the mere fact of physical generation.  On the contrary, the distinguishing ethical characteristics of races, as seen in their ethical ideals and their moral conduct, are determined by the dominant social order, and vary with it.  Ethical characteristics are transmitted by association, transmission is therefore not limited to the relation of parents and children.  The bearing of this fact on the problem of the moral transformation of races could be easily shown.

XXV

ARE THE JAPANESE RELIGIOUS?

Said Prof.  Pfleiderer to the writer in the winter of 1897:  “I am sorry to know that the Japanese are deficient in religious nature.”  In an elaborate article entitled, “Wanted, a Religion,” a missionary describes the three so-called religions of Japan, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism, and shows to his satisfaction that none of these has the essential characteristics of religion.