The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-06-22

OF the conclusions advanced by certain cham
pions Of evolutionary doctrines. he bids us hew
down the tree and cast 1t into the FIRE We deny
the authenticity OF tho fruits-that Is our obvi-
Gus reioinder. While. however. we cannot see
anything specially timely. fecund. or conclu-
sive in our authors arralgnment OF ill-dlgested
and uncertlnod suggestions. many OF his re-
marks deserve attention on tho score Of pene-
tratlon. and his whole volume is commended
by an unusually fresh. lucid, and pleasing style.
Mr.. Mallock acknowledges that all possible
methods Of treating man evince at least dis
position to adopt all that has ever been said
about the dignity OF mans moral and spiritual
life and he proceeds to define fairly enough the
task which positive thinkers have thus set them
selves. Upon their theory. OF course. the
beauty and dignity OF humanity must be found
in this earthly life. the life between the cradle
and the grave. that 1t IL limited by the time the
human race can exist by the space In the uni
verse that the human race occupies. and the
capacities OF enjoyment that the human race
possesses. Undoubtedly the positive thinker
has a case to DO proved. and our author finds
no difficulty in showing that their demonstra-
ton is. rs yet. defective 1t is easy for him to
dispute the assertion that goodness is lts own
reward. the JOY OF living its own recompense.
and to point out the practical obstacles to the
enforcement OF any code OF ethics. stripped Of n
religious sanction. His destructive criticism Ia
particularly effective where he discusses soci-
ology as the foundation Of morality. Here he
examines some OF the tentative positions
assumed by Mill and Spencer. by Prof.
Huxley and Prof. Clifford. Mill. II will be
remembered. never wnvered In tho conviction
that happiness was tho one end OF life and the
test Of its rule OF conduct. and he finally reached
the conclusion that this end was to be gained by
fixing the mind on some object other than ones
own happiness. viz the happiness Of others.
tho improvement Of mankind. This theory
would obviously give morals a basis in the ac-
knowledged science Of sociology. Mr.. Mallock
Is. therefore, prompted to inquire to what ex-
tent such foundation is substantial. definite.
and fruitful. He begins by pointing out the
vagueness Of tho terms general good" and
general happiness" which are seldom accom-
panied by a definition OF the felicity supposed
to be equally distributed. Unauestionably. a
happy society can mean nothing but a number
OF happy individuals. so organized In a commu-
nifty that their individual well-beinR is secured
to them. What constitutes individual veal
II is charged in this volume that the
apostles OF the positive school confuse the mega
tive conditions OF happiness with its positive
dynamic elements. Prof Huxley for example.
In a well-known passage. has classed together
theft. murder. and adultery rs crimes essenti-
ally incompatible with the general good. Mr..
Mallock points out. very Justly. that these acts
do not stand on the same footing We condemn
theft and murder because they are inconsistent
with any form OF happiness; we condemn
adultery. because 1t Is the supposed destruction
OF one particular form. or the substitution rather
Of primitive type OF sexual relation for an
other considered more noble and com plvte. The
distinction between the negative conditions and
the truly vital materials Of human veal Ia still
more lucdly brought out by the following illus
tration: Suppose" says our author. the hu-
man race were set OF canaries In cage. and
that we we're in grave doubt as TO what seed to
give them-hemp seed. rape seed. or canary
seed or all three mixed In certain proportions"
that. he thinks. would represent tho present
state OF the problem. and he deems II quite beside
the point to be told that the birds must not peck
each others eyes out. and that they must all
have access to the trough that we are ignorant
how TO all. He adds n suggestive comparison
OF the science OF sociology to that OF medicine.
Tho aim OF both sciences indisputably Is to pro-
duce health. and he maintains-thoughh here Of
course. he assumes a good deal-that the rela-
ton OF health to happiness ia. In both cases the
same. A man may be in excellent health. and
yet. II he be only prudent in worldly sense,
be living degrading life. 30. too" continues
our author. may a society. The cities OF the
plain. for instance. may have been in excellent
social health. indeed there 10 every reason to
believe they were. They were apparently. TO n
high degree. strong and prosperous. and the
sort OF happiness their citizens set most store
by was only too generally attainablo."
Mr.. Mallock thinks that one or another OF two
suggestions is always lurking in the positivist
mind. and that although these seem plausible
] IL. III
exposed the momentthcy are clearly stated. He
nnds one Of these hypothesis in the notion that
for human happiness. health. after all. is tho
sole reauiste-health In the social organ ism.
including sufflcientwealth and freedom. and that
mans life. whenever 1t is not interfered with
will be naturally moral dignifled. and delight
full no matter how no lives It. 1t is plainly light
task TO demonstrate the absurdity OF this theory.
provided We give the term morality any sense
In which the word has yet boen used. We con-
cur with Mr.. Mallock In his rejoinder that upon
this hypothesis Sodom might have been as
moral as the tents Of Abraham: that social or
ganism In It's highest state Of perfection might
include a number OF motley communes OF
monogamists and free lovers OF ascetics and
sybarites OF saints and paiderasts. each OF their
being stones in this true Civitas Del. this holy
city Of God." The second erroneous SUPPOSE
|
reason or ether. happiness can never be dis.
tributed unless it be not only equal In degree.
but also the clmo In kind. and that the one kind
that can thus be distributed is ono in harmony
with our conceptions Of moral excellence.
There are. doubtless. certain kinds OF
felicity which can be enjoyed by tho
few alone. and only under circumstances which
disturb the conditions OF felicity for tho many.
Tho general good ought to give us. therefore.
tost by which such sorts OF happiness can be
condemned. But Mr.. Maock points out that
to eliminate these will by no means leave us a
residue Of virtue. since tho condemnation is a
legal, rather than moral. one. and might be
reconsdered under a change Of circumstances.
Thus the practice Of seduction may be thought
to be sufficiently condemned by the misery
brought 70 its victims. and its victims family.
But suppose, says our author the victims are
willing. and tho families complacent. Ia state Of
things for which there are historical precedents)
this ground OF condemnation goes, though in
the eye OF tho moralist matters In this last case
will DO far worse than In the former 1t is,
therefore. in Mr.. Malock's judgment. mistake
TO hold that the kind OF happiness which il is
the end OF life to realize is defined or narrowed