Page "religion" Paragraph 203

Mr. Philip Toynbee writes, for example, that `` in terms of probability it is surely as likely as not that mutual fear will lead to accidental war in the near future if the present situation continues.

If it continues indefinitely it is nearly a statistical certainty that a mistake will be made and that the devastation will begin ''.

Against such a termination of human life on earth by human action, he then proposes as an alternative that we `` negotiate at once with the Russians and get the best terms which are available '', that we deliberately `` negotiate from comparative weakness ''.

He bravely attempts to face this alternative realistically, i.e., by considering the worst possible outcome, namely, the total domination of the world by Russia within a few years.

This would be by far the better choice, when `` it is a question of allowing the human race to survive, possibly under the domination of a regime which most of us detest, or of allowing it to destroy itself in appalling and prolonged anguish ''.

Nevertheless, the consequence of the policy proposed is everywhere subtly qualified: it is `` a possible result, however improbable '' ; ;

`` the worst, and least probable '' result ; ;

`` if it didn't prevail mankind would still be given the opportunity of prevailing '' ; ;

for `` surely anything is better than a policy which allows for the possibility of nuclear war ''.

If we have not thought and made a decision entirely in these terms, then we need to submit ourselves to the following `` simple test '': `` Have we decided how we are to kill the other members of our household in the event of our being less injured than they are ''??

Thus, moral decision must be entirely deduced backward from the likely eventuality ; ;

it is no longer to be formulated in terms of the nature of present action itself, its intention, and proximate effect or the thing to be done.