{
  "id": "a_ctnvt4vg",
  "oid": 165374,
  "revision": 1,
  "revision_oid": 165375,
  "work": "orthodoxy",
  "edition": "pg16769-r1",
  "title": "A probable Shaw allusion: moral codes lag behind individual judgment",
  "anchors": [
    {
      "unit": "CH07.P005",
      "oid": 161,
      "role": null,
      "edition": "pg16769-r1",
      "paragraph": "CH07.P005",
      "exact": "human morality is never up to date",
      "start": 183,
      "end": 217,
      "prefix": "carelessly uses the phrase that ",
      "suffix": ". How can anything be up to date",
      "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH07.P005#char=183,217"
    }
  ],
  "body_markdown": "A close candidate for the unnamed writer is Bernard Shaw. In *The Sanity of Art*, under ‘Why Law is Indispensable,’ Shaw says that laws, religions, creeds and ethical systems make society worse than its average member because ‘they are never up to date.’ The inspected witness is the New Age Press edition (London, 1908), pp. 46–47; its preface identifies the original essay as journalism of 1895 and explains that it was an open letter to Benjamin Tucker for *Liberty*. Chesterton's sentence is a condensed paraphrase rather than an exact quotation. The verbal match makes this a probable source, but Chesterton does not name Shaw here. [Shaw, pp. 46–47 and preface, pp. 3–10](https://modjourn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SOA.pdf).\n\nThe context complicates the criticism. Shaw immediately explains that most people lack the ability or time to devise their own rules: they must accept available moral systems as they accept available tools. He also argues that shared conventions make coordinated action possible. His point is therefore about collective codes lagging behind thought and serving practical needs, rather than an explicit demonstration that a later date itself makes a judgment better. Chesterton's retort exposes the missing standard by which ‘up to date’ becomes praise; it does not by itself refute Shaw's account of why inherited rules can lag behind individual judgment. [Shaw, ‘Why Law is Indispensable,’ pp. 46–49](https://modjourn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SOA.pdf).",
  "sources": [
    {
      "url": "https://modjourn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SOA.pdf",
      "title": "Bernard Shaw, The Sanity of Art (London: New Age Press, 1908)",
      "locator": "Preface, pp. 3–10; ‘Why Law is Indispensable,’ pp. 46–49 (PDF pages 47–50 for printed pp. 46–49)",
      "exact": null
    }
  ],
  "citations": [],
  "external_references": [
    {
      "url": "https://modjourn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SOA.pdf",
      "title": "Shaw, pp. 46–47 and preface, pp. 3–10"
    }
  ],
  "limits": [
    "Probable allusion, not a documented explicit identification by Chesterton.",
    "The inspected text is the revised 1908 edition; the original 1895 Liberty witness was not collated. Shaw's preface says the section on conventional law was expanded."
  ],
  "metadata": {
    "run": "chapter-07-restart-2026-11-07",
    "paragraph_investigator": "P005",
    "task": [
      {
        "approach": "Quotations and attributions",
        "question": "Can the unnamed writer's claim that morality is never up to date be located, and does its original context support Chesterton's reading?"
      },
      {
        "approach": "Connections across Chesterton’s works",
        "question": "Does Chesterton elsewhere qualify his objection to being up to date and explain why progress requires a defined good?"
      }
    ],
    "model": "gpt-6.1-sol"
  },
  "content_sha256": "sha256:cee37eac03294872f8b616a7744b709c6951aaba6822f2edd2abf1bd3fd81e35",
  "created_at": "2026-11-07T18:08:03Z",
  "is_current": true,
  "url": "/a/a_ctnvt4vg",
  "revision_path": "/a/a_ctnvt4vg/r/1",
  "cited_by": []
}