But why all this laboured examination into the propriety, or impropriety, of making exceptions to an ascertained ethical law? The very question is absurd. For what does a man really mean by saying of a thing that it is " theoretically just," or " true in principle," or " abstractedly right "? Simply that E 50 INTRODUCTION.
it accords with what he, in some way or other, perceives to he the estahUshed arrangements of Divine rule, ^^^len he admits that an act is "theoretically just," he admits it to he that which, in strict duty, should be done. By " true in prin- ciple," he means in harmony with the conduct decreed for us. The course which he caUs " abstractedly right," he beUeves to be the appointed way to human happiness. There is no escape. The expressions mean this, or they mean nothing. Practically, therefore, when he proposes to disobey, he does so in the hope of improving on this guidance! Though told that such and such are the true roads to happiness, he opines that he knows shorter ones! To the Creator's silent command — "Do this; " he repUes that, aU things considered, he thinks he can do better! This is the real Infidehty; the true Atheism: to doubt the foresight and efficiency of the Divine arrange- ments, and with infinite presumption to suppose a human judgment less falhhle! When will man " cease his frantic pretension of scanning this great God's World in his small fraction of a brain; and know that it has verily, though deep beyond his soundings, a Just Law; that the soul of it is good; — that his part in it is to conform to the Law of the Whole, and in devout silence follow that, not questioning it, obeying it as unquestionable." * ) Briefly reviewing the argument, we mark first, that physical laws are characterized by constancy and universality, and that there is every reason to beheve the like true of ethical ones. It is inferred, that if so, there is no safety but in entire obedience, even in spite of threatening appearances. This inference is enforced by the consideration, that any departure from prin- ciple to escape some anticipated evil, is a return to the proved errors of expediency. It is again enforced by the fact, that the innumerable attempts of a stifi'-necked worldly wisdom to * Advice, by the way, which in these latter days the giver might properly enough take home to himself.
INTEODUCTION. 61 benefit by disobedience have failed. And it is yet farther enforced by the reflection, that to think we can better our- selves by deserting the road marked out for us, is an impious assumption of more than divine omniscience.
The reasons for thus specially insisting on implicit obedience ■will become apparent as the reader proceeds. Amongst the conclusions inevitably foUo-wing from an admitted principle, he ■will most likely find several for which he is hardly prepared. Some of these will seem strange; others impracticable; and, it may be — one or two whoUy at variance with his ideas of duty. Nevertheless should he find them logically derived from a fundamental truth, he ■will have no alternative but to adopt them as rules of conduct, which ought to be followed without exception. If there be any weight in the considerations above set forth, then, no matter how seemingly inexpedient, dangerous, injurious even, may be the course which morality points out as " abstractedly - right," the highest ■wisdom is in perfect and fearless submission. ■ PART I.
CHAPTER I.
DEFINITION OF MORALITY.
There does not seem to exist any settled idea as to what a Moral Philosophy properly embraces. Moralists have either omitted to prelude their inquiries hy any strict definition of the work to he done, or a definition of a very loose and iadis- criminating character has been framed. Instead of confining themselves to the discovery and application of certain essential principles of right conduct, they have attempted to give rules for all possible actions, under all possible circumstances. Pro- perly understood the subject matter for investigation lies withiu comparatively narrow hmits; but, overlooking these, they have entered upon a multitude of questions which we shall shortly find to be quite beyond their province.
As already said (p. 15) the moral law must be the law of the ' perfect man — the law ia obedience to which perfection consists. There are but two propositions for us to choose between. It may either be asserted that moraUty is a code of rules for the behaviour of man as he is — a code which recognises existing defects of character, and allows for them; or otherwise that it is a code of rules for the regulation of conduct amongst men as they should be. Of the first alternative we must say, that any proposed system of morals which recognises existiag defects, and countenances acts made needful by them, stands self-con- demned; seeing that, by the hypothesis, acts thus excused are not the best conceivable; that is^are not perfectly right — ^not 56 DEFINITION OF MORALITY.
perfectly moral, and therefore a morality -which permits them, is, in SO far as it does this, not a morality at all. To escape from this contradiction is impossible, save by adopting the Other alternative; namely, that the moral law ignoring all jvicious conditions, defects, and incapacities, prescribes the con- iduct of an ideal humanity. Pm-e and absolute rectitude can alone be its subject matter. Its object must be to determine the relationships in which men ot<ght to stand to each other— to point out the principles of action in a normal society. By successive propositions it must aim to give a systematic state- ment of those conditions under which human beings may har- moniously combine; and to this end it requires as its postulate, that those human beings be perfect. Or we may term it the science of social life; a science that, in common with all other sciences, assumes perfection in the elements with which it deals.
» Treating therefore as it does on the abstract principles of right conduct, and the deductions to be made from these, a system of pure ethics cannot recognise evil, or any of those conditions which evil generates. It entirely ignores wrong, injustice, or crime, and gives no information as to what must be done when they have been committed. It knows no such thing as an infraction of the laws, for it is merely a statement of what the laws are. It simply says, such and such are the principles on which men should act; and when these are broken it can do nothing but say that they are broken. If asked what ought any one to do when another has knocked him down, it will not tfill; it can only answer that an assault is a trespass against the law, and gives rise to a wrong relationship. It is silent as to the manner in which we should behave to a thief; all the information it affords is, that theft is a disturbance of social equihbrium. We may learn from it that debt impHes an infraction of the moral code; but whether the debtor should or should not be imprisoned, cannot be decided by it. To all DEFINITION OF MORALITY. 57 questions which presuppose some antecedent unlawful action, such as — Should a hamster defend any one whom he helieves to he guilty? Ought a man to hreak an oath which he has taken to do something wrong? Is it proper to publish the misconduct of our fellows? the perfect law can give no reply, hecause it does not recognise the premises. In seeking to settle such points on purely ethical principles, morahsts have attempted impossibilities. As well might they have tried to solve mathematically a series of problems respecting crooked lines and broken-hacked curves, or to deduce from the theorems of mechanics the proper method of setting to work a dislocated machine. No conclusions can lay claim to absolute truth, but such as depend upon truths that are themselves absolute. Before there can he exactness in an inference, there must be exactness in the antecedent propositions. A geometrician requires that the straight lines with which he deals shall be veritably straight; and that his circles, and ellipses, and pai'a- holas shall agree with precise definitions — shall perfectly and invariably answer to specified equations. If you put to him a question in which these conditions are not complied with, he tells you that it cannot be answered. So Ukewise is it with the philosophical morahst. He treats solely of the straight man. He determines the properties of the straight man; de- scribes how the straight man comports himself; shows in what relationship he stands to other straight men; shows how a community of straight men is constituted. Any deviation from strict rectitude he is obliged wholly to ignore. It cannot be admitted into his premises without vitiating all his conclusions. A problem in which a crooked man forms one of the elements is insoluble by him. He may state what he thinks about it — may give an approximate solution; but anything more is im- possible. His decision is no longer scientific and authorita- tive, but is now merely an ojpinion.
Or perhaps the point may be most conveniently enforced, by using the science of the anunal man, to illustrate that of the moral man. Physiology is defined as a classified statement of 58 DEFINITION OF MORALITY.
the phenomena of bodily life. It treats of the functions of our several organs in their normal states. It explains the relation- ships in which the members stand to each other — what are their respective duties — how such duties are performed, and why they are necessary. It exhibits the mutual dependence of the vital actions; points out how these are maintained in due balance, and describes the condition of things constituting perfect health. Disease it does not even recognise, and can therefore solve no questions concerning it. To the inquiry — What is the cause of fever? or, what is the best remedy for a cold? it gives no answer. Such matters are out of its sphere. Could it reply it would be no longer Physiology, but Pathology, or Therapeutics. Just so it is with a true morality, which might properly enough be called — Moral Physiology. Its office is simply to expound the principles of moral health. Like its analogue, it has nothing to do with morbid actions and de- ranged functions. It deals only with the laws of a normal humanity, and cannot recognise a wrong, a depraved, or a disordered condition.
Hence it appears, that in treating of two such matters as the right of property, and the impropriety of duelling, as paits of the same science, moralists have confounded together subjects that are essentially distinct. The question— What are the right principles of human conduct? is one thing; the ques- tion— What must be done when those principles have been broken through? is another, and widely - different thing. Whether this last admits of any solution — whether it is pos- sible to develope scientifically a Moral Pathology and a Moral Therapeutics seems very doubtful. Be this as it may, how- ever, it is very clear that a system of pure Ethics is inde- pendent of these. And it will be considered so throughout the ensuing investigations.
CHAPTER II.
THE EVANESCENCE OF EVIL.
All evil results from the non- adaptation of constitution to conditions. Tliis is true of everydiing tliat lives. Does a shrub dwindle in poor soil, or become sickly when de- prived of light, or die outright if removed to a cold cUmate? it is because the harmony between its organization and its cir- cumstances has been destroyed. Those experiences of the farm- yard and tlie menagerie which show that pain, disease, and death, are entailed upon animals by certain kinds of treatment, may all be generalised under the same law. Every suiFering incident to the human body, from a headache up to a fatal illness — from a bum or a sprain, to accidental loss of life, is similarly traceable to the having placed that body iu a situa- tion for which its powers did not fit it. Nor is the expression confined in its application to physical evil; it comprehends moral evil also. Is the kindhearted man distressed by the sight of misery? is the bachelor unhappy because his means will not permit him to marry? does the mother mourn over her lost child? does the emigrant lament leaving his father- land? are some made uncomfortable by having to pass their lives in distasteful occupations, and others fr'om having no oc- cupation at aU? the explanation is stiU the same. No matter what the special nature of the evil, it is invariably referable to the one generic cause — want of congruity between the faculties and their spheres of action.
Equally true is it that evil perpetually tends to disappear. In virtue of an essential principle of Hfe, this non-adaptation of CO THE EVANESCENCE OF EVIL.
an orgaDism to its conditions is ever being rectified; and modi- fication of one or both, continues until the adaptation is com- plete. Whatever possesses vitaUty, from the elementary cell up to man himself, inclusive, obeys this law. We see it illus- trated in the acclimatization of plants, in the altered habits of domesticated animals, in the vaiTing characteristics of our own race. Accustomed to the brief arctic summer, the Siberian herbs and shrubs spring up, flower, and ripen their seeds, in the space of a few weeks. If exposed to the rigour of northern winters, animals of the temperate zone get thicker coats, and become white. The greyhound which, when first transported to the high plateaus of the Andes, fails in the chase from want of breath, acquires, in the course of generations, a more efficient pair of lungs. Cattle which in their wild state gave milk but for short periods, now give it almost continuously. Ambling is a pace not natural to the horse; yet there are American breeds that now take to it without training.
Man exhibits just the same adaptabOity. He alters in colour according to temperature — lives here upon rice, and there upon whale oU — gets larger digestive organs if he habitually eats innutritions food — acquires the power of long fasting if his mode of life is irregular, and loses it when the supply of food is certain — becomes fleet and agile in the wilderness and inert in the city — attains acute vision, hearing, and scent, when his habits of life call for them, and gets these senses blunted when they are less needful. That such changes are towards fitness for surrounding circumstances no one can question. When he sees that the dweller in marshes lives in an atmosphere which is certain death to a stranger — when he sees that the Hindoo can he down and sleep under a tropical sun, whilst his white master with closed bhnds, and water sprinklings, and punkah, can hardly get a doze — when he sees that the Greenlander and the Neapolitan subsist comfortably on their respective foods — blubber and macaroni, but would be made miserable by an interchange of them — when he sees that in other cases there is stiU this fitness to diet, to climate, and to modes of life, even THE EVANESCENCE OF EVIL. 61 the most sceptical must admit that some law of adaptation is at work. Nay, indeed, if he interprets facts aright, he will find that the action of such a law, is traceahle down to the minutest ramifications of individual experience. In the drunkard who needs an increasing quantity of spirits to intoxicate him, and in the opium eater, who has to keep taking a larger dose to produce the usual effect, he may mark how the system gradu- ally acquires power to resist what is noxious. Those who smoke, who take snuff, or -who hahitually use medicines, can furnish hke illustrations. Nor in fact, is there any permanent change of hodily state or capability, which is not to be ac- counted for on the same principle.
This universal law of physical modification, is the law of mental modification also. The multitudinous differences of capacity and disposition that have in course of time grovm up between the Indian, African, Mongolian and Caucasian races, and between the various subdivisions of them, must all be ascribed to the acquirement in each case of fitness for surround- ing circumstances. Those strong contrasts between the cha- racters of nations and of times awhile since exemplified (p. 34) admit of no other conceivable explanation. Why all this divergence from the one common origiaal type? If adaptation of constitution to conditions is not the cause, what is the cause?
There are none, however, who can with anything Hke con- sistency combat this doctiine; for aU use arguments that pre- suppose its truth. Even those to whose prejudices the theory of man's indefinite adaptabihty is most opposed, are continu- ally betraying their involuntary belief in it. They do this when they attribute differences of national character to differences in social customs and arrangements: and again when they com- ment on the force of habit: and again when they discuss the probable influence of a proposed measure upon pubHc mo- raUty: and again when they recommend practice as a means of acquiring increased aptitude: and again when they describe certain pursuits as elevating and others as degrading: and 02 THE EVANESCENCE OF EVIL.
again when tbey talk of getting used to anything: and again when they advocate certain systems of mental discipline — when they teach that virtuous conduct eventually becomes pleasur- able, and when they warn against the power of a long-en- couraged vice.
In fact, if we consider the question closely, no other ar- rangement of tilings can be imagined. For we must adopt one of three propositions. We must either affirm that the human being is wholly unaltered by the influences that are brought to bear upon him — his circumstances as we call them; or that he perpetually tends to become more and more un<ed to those circumstances; or that he tends to become fitted to them. If the first is trae, then all schemes of education, of government, of social reform — aU instrumentalities by which it is proposed to act upon man, are utterly useless, seeing that he cannot be acted upon at aU. If the second is true, then the way to make a man virtuous is to accustom him to vicious practices, and vice versa. Both of which propositions being absurd, we are compelled to admit the remaining one.
Keeping in mind then the two facts, that all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions; and that where this non-adaptation exists it is continually being dimin- ished by the changing of constitution to suit conditions, we shall be prepared for comprehending the present position of the human race.
By the increase of population the state of existence we call social has been necessitated. Men living in this state sufifer imder numerous evils. By the hypothesis it follows that their characters £ire not completely adapted to such a state.
In what respect are they not so adapted? what is the special qualification which the social state requires?
It requires that each individual shall have such desires only, as may be fully satisfied without trenching upon the ability of THE EVANESCENCE OF EVIL. 03 other individuals to obtain like satisfaction. If the desires of each are not thus limited, then either all must have certain of their desires ungratified; or some must get gratification for them at the corresponding expense of others. Both of which alternatives necessitating pain, imply non-adaptation.
But why is not man adapted to the social state?
Simply because he yet partially retains the characteristics that adapted him for an antecedent state. The respects in which he is not fitted to society are the respects in which he is fitted for his original predatory life. EEis primitive circum- stances required that he should sacrifice the welfare of other beings to his own; his present circumstances require that he should not do so; and in as far as his old attribute stOl clings to him, in so far is he unfit for the social state. All sins of men against each other, from the cannibalism of the Carrib to the crimes and venahties that we see around us; the felonies that fill our prisons, the trickeries of trade, the quarrelings of nation with nation, and of class with class, the corruptness of iustitutions, the jealousies of caste, and the scandal of drawing- rooms, have their causes comprehended under this generaliza- tion.
Concerning the present position of the human race, we must therefore say, that man needed one moral constitution to fit him for his original state; that he needs another to fit him for his present state; and that he has been, is, and wiU long contiaue to be, in process of adaptation. By the term civilization we signify the adaptation that has akeady taken place. The changes that constitaXje progress are the successive steps of the transition. And the behef in human perfectibility, merely amounts to the behef, that in virtue of this process, man vriU eventually become completely suited to his mode of life.
If there be any conclusiveness in the foregoing arguments, such a faith is well founded. As commonly supported by evi- C4 THE EVANESCENCE OF EVIL.
dence drawn from liistory, it cannot be considered indisputable. The inference that as advancement has been hitherto the rule, it will be the rule henceforth, may be called a plausible specu- lation. But when it is shown that this advancement is due to the working of a universal law; and that in virtue of that law it must continue until the state we call perfection is reached, then the advent of such a state is removed out of the region of probabiUty into that of certainty. If any one demurs to this, let him point out the en-or. Here are the several steps of the argument.
All imperfection is unfitness to the conditions of existence.
This unfitness must consist either in having a faculty or faculties in excess; or in having a faculty or faculties deficient; or in both.
A faculty in excess, is one which the conditions of existence do not afibrd full exercise to; and a faculty that is deficient, is one from which the conditions of existence demand more than it can perform.
But it is an essential principle of fife that a faculty to which circumstances do not allow full exercise diminishes; and that a faculty on which circumstances make excessive demands increases.
And so long as this excess and this deficiency continue, there must continue decrease on the one hand, and growth on the other.
Finally all excess and all deficiency must disappear; that is, all unfitness must disappear; that is, all imperfection must disappear.
Thus the ultimate development of the ideal man is logically certain— as certain as any conclusion in which we place the most impUcit faith; for instance, that all men will die. For why do we infer that all men will die? Simply because, in' an immense number of past experiences, death has uniformly occurred. Similarly tlien as the experiences of all people in all times — experiences that are embodied in maxims, proverbs, and moral precepts, and that are illustrated in biographies and THE EVANESCENCE OF EVIL. 05 histories, go to prove that organs, faculties, powers, capacities, or whatever else we call them, grow hy use and diminish from disuse, it is infen-ed that they will continue to do so. And if tliis inference is unquestionable, then is the one above deduced from it — that humanity must in the end become completely adapted to its conditions— unquestionable also.
Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity. Instead of civilization being artificial, it is a part of natm-e; all of a piece with the development of the embryo or the unfolding of a flower. The modifications mankind have undergone, and are still undergoing, result from a law underlying the whole or- ganic creation; and provided the human race continues, and the constitution of things remains the same, those modifications must end in completeness. As surely as the tree becomes bulky when it stands alone, and slender if one of a group; as surely as the same creature assumes the different forms of cart- horse and race-horse, according as its habits demand strength or speed; as surely as a blacksmith's arm grows large, and the skin of a labourer's hand thick; as surely as the eye tends to become long-sighted in the sailor, and short-sighted in the student; as surely as the blind attain a more delicate sense of touch; as surely as a clerk acquires rapidity in writing and calculation; as surely as the musician learns to detect an error of a semitone amidst What seems to others a very babel of sounds; as surely as a passion grows by indulgence and diminishes when restrained; as surely as a disregarded conscience becomes inert, and one that is obeyed active; as surely as there is any efficacy in educational culture, or any meaning in such terms as habit, custom, practice; — so surely must the human faculties be moulded into complete fitness for the social state; so surely must the things we call evil and immorality disappear; so surely must man become perfect.