, 1879-08-16

argument nERlHst lsFolAtlOlls HH IeA50nhnl0
man will doubt ia atrcnHth. That side OF the
discussion llaA never been more forcfbly stated.
1t will command tho toAncct of l)arwib!sts, for
It /. tlt.passouutc, tliQntl. mid always respect
fnl In Its treatment of them. G'Tllc Human |
apccos.n I,y A. Du Quntrcfaeas, Professor of |
Anthropotoey In Tho Musen;n ot Natural I1ts-
tory, rarta. vol, 12nln., cloth, 4H pages. |
Price, a., Forming No. II Of "'r1le Internn- |
atonal Scientific scrtcn." New York: u. 40.
p1cton d Coz
IS LIFE WORTH L1vIS0s
Such IL tue title ol n volume recently p,,t,- |
lslctl by tho 1'utnans. The author, ". II.
Mallock, Of Enalani1. Inns for some timo been
discussing the subject Of this work IN thc Con
temporary Rrsi<w mil the 4Nihftrhth Century.
The prcacn. work Is u1adc uE chiefly Of those |
nrl!clca. Ils profcascd object Is TO consider tho
socal mud moral scheme Of the ro'tivtsts; but
he uses the term "poeittr1sm," as corernr the
whoIo ground Of scicntlflc nntl ma.crlallst1c
eI;opticlsm whtch!paeonicwhnt misleading usage.
Tho truth Ii, posittvs1n, so calel aiming p!h-
!oaophcrs, ,,ta not by nnr means Identical with
thc akcptlcism OF lie present day considered at
large. As Ms. A1a1'ock himself poige oi,t,
ao,ne Of stthe most trenehcnt and corlemptu-
ousn criticisms Of that posits7isra have been
1nnio by such scicnttlc skopttcs as 1Inxlcy. and
It would hc cnsy 10 show that thu sociology and
morality Of ,e different schools OF skcnttcs arc
20 Mt war With oile another ~ to forbid nny auet
general unifYsng Of them us Mr. Haock nssurnca
as the basis Of Ills argument. For this reason II
Ia useless TO Inquire whnt would be Tim results
OF any ono OF these theories carried out in l,l-
man society. Tic practical question ss. What
would be the consequences OF she general
prevalence Of skcptcfsm III Its var!o,ts anti
religious forms, considering a1l It's conflicting
ps,ascs7
Mr.. Mal1ock first discusses "t!c new import
of the question: Whether life IS worth living,
MS presented by Tho current and prospective un-
belief OF our times. We fully ngrne With many
OF his positions In this discussion. Undoubtedly
the existing practical phases OF ekeptfclstn Rre
very different from wha. ttry would bo If the
color!nga OF social and moral acntitncnt that
have been left upon them by Christianity wcre
pnrgcl out and tl.e fruits Of unbcIcf Ia the
purcst form wcro alone exhibited in the tono and
shaping OF socicty. It would therefore be an
Immense work to break all the ties Of tho past
II the akcptical PHILOSOPHERS we're universally
adopted; nor do the advocates Of these sc!rtncs
profess to be aiming at this. But they do claim
to have destroyed the foundations Of Thcism
aud OF all real religion. just hero, however, 1t
Il proper to question tho position Of Mr. Nal
lock. lie seems to conceda much more threat
cninc triumph OF atilciss!c unbe!sef than tt'~
factB sccsn to warrnDt. Further on NC think We
discern special reason Tor this concession.
Our author next consllass "Ilie Prize q! Life.a
Thia, In tho view Of tho skcpttcal inoralsts, is
the highest good Of sociaty. and the road TO II IS
sound temporal morality. But. as Mr.. Ma,-
lock we'll showa, the "poaltlVists," MS he callB
them, fail to give any clear definition OF the
"good to which they REFER T'hcy only define
the hinlrances to the attainment Of IT, which
they would have baniahed from socIcty-sucIl
as murder. theft, aud adultery. Here Mr. Nal
lock snnlcs searching examination of the posi-
tlon TINT SOCIOLOGY Is tisc foundation Of NOR
atty" The question, he still insists, lis, What
is tho happiness to conslst Of which sociology
Is to secure, aud how Is the uusclisllncss to be
introduced By which tho common good Is to be
nchtcrelt Tho positive religion ot temporal
bencvolcncc and progress gives ITO alc9uate
answer to these questions. "0oodncss,r wo arc
told, us Its own reward" But what Is :" good
ness" and what is the "rc,rastl - which It