In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BRIEF NOTICES States and Morals: A Study in Political Conflicts. By T. D. WELDON. New York: Whittlesey House, 1947. Pp. ix, 310, with index. $3.00. The exigencies of the present international situation, as well as the remembrance of the recent international carnage, have caused many thoughtful men to ~ttempt a re-appraisal of our political theory. One of the most arresting and provocative of these attempts, at least in its initial stages, is that of T. D. Weldon, in States and Morals. The very juxtaposition of the two concepts in the title is both stimulating and hopeful, and the subtitle, too, is well-chosen as an explanation. Weldon is a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, which seems to be experiencing a new reform movement, somewhat milder and more diffuse than that of a century ago. In Weldon's case, the effort to reform his hearers and readers is concerned primarily with political thinking, since he contends that a reform in political thought will necessarily be followed by a reform in political action. The book, then, is political philosophy, very largely, with some condensed history of that tremendous subject, and with some few conclusions drawn at the errd of these treatments. There are five chapters devoted to the theoretical and historical exposition of the problem, one to its solution; the balance struck seems to be a fair one. In his preface Mr. Weldon points out that there are very many political conflicts today, each likely to have unpleasant results. If the bases for misunderstandings were removed, he feels, many of the conflicts would disintegrate automatically, and opportunities for peace would be' multiplied . What is the basic difficulty in each case is the confusion which has arisen as to what is basic; if the cOilflicts between nations and individuals are about economic matters, then an economic approach· to an economic solution must be attempted, but if-as many contend-the difficulties are really ideological, then a quite different approach must be used. At least it seems valuable to consider the various political ideologies now subscribed to, and to determine whether their adherents must always be opposed to each other. To arrive at an understanding of the situation, Weldon, taking nothing for granted, proceeds to examine the aim of political philosophy, and dis· covers that it is concerned with the grounds upon which the State attempts to exercise control over its members. This truth, elementary though it may appear, is worthy of restatement, because disagreements on precisely this head are frequently basic to other types of disagreements, or are implicit in quarrels ostensibly non-political. By considering a number of 242 BRmF NOTICES situations which have arisen as a result of adherence to divergent political theories, Weldon arrives at the conclusion that all of them are logically defensible, since no one of them can be more than a practicaloworking hypothesis . With such a conclusion not everyone could agree, but in Weldon's system it is a perfectly logical corollary to his earlier statement that we cannot rely upon revelation for an answer to political questions. While the position taken by Weldon is logical, it cannot, however, be admitted that his premises or his conclusions are true. The problems he presents here are ones which he declares are dialectical, whereas they actually exist in the realm of epistemology, as his final chapter shows definitively. Having adopted the position that all political theo~ies are logically defensible , Weldon can confidently assert that the answer to the important question: does the individual exist for the State or the State for the individual? must rest upon something more solid than guesses. Inasmuch as he has ignored one of the bases for a sound approach to political theory, this statement comes to the reader as something of a shock; unless Weldon is willing to place some reliance upon reason, after flouting the possibility of guidance from revelation, what solid ground can he hope to use for his answer to this question? Yet his whole treatment of the question up to this point is a triumph of brilliant logic which aims to discredit human reasoning rather thoroughly. The remainder of the book is thus a remarkable intellectual exercise...

pdf

Share