New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-07-14
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
THE SCIENCE OF ETHICS. BY LESLIE srErhhS'
New.York: G. P. Putnams Sons 1sss'

In
ten book. Certainly it is as viewed from literary
rather tnau from philosophical point of view Mr.
S,onbe, invests every subject which he treats OF
with charm peculiar to himself of apparently can
did treatment clear statement and individual iorce'
Wo cannut say that his intense individuality docs
not often mislead him, unconsciousiy PERHAPS "
nostive one-sidedness but he does not thereby ioo
The charm which his striking personality ihpai,'
Ethics. especially the Science OF EthlcS' "o"',
seem to require n strictly scientific methoo' WV
scientific criticism somewhat of formal hanuilhs'
involving careful if not formal definitions anu we
ical augmentation. as also more or less VI 49, ~,
tive criticism. But all these Mr. stephen "'o"e~S
ayo;cs 70 the extreme of almost never naming
writer or citing an opinion in the worus vi 10
sentative On the contrary, he uniformly 100
&c o,r;ons ond theories in the abstract, as VieNeu
nv himself from his own standI ONT anu cohceNou
.nd s,otad in his own language. By pursuing inns
,uethod he gains certain obvious ADVANTAGES i''
literary treatment and popular IMPRESSION ouV o'''
more in solid conviction and philosophical power
Tempo,arily he may gain in the advocacy ol MS
cause before the tribunal Of literary crticiSin' pa'
nermauently he will fail in a greater proportion u
change the principles of those who Will hhaliy 'oi-
troll the opinions of writers and critics.
~be standpoint which Mr.. stephen occupies Is
prettv clearly indicated by tho sKetch Wincn "0
gives in his preface of the history Oh MS r M
lie was Mt first an "orthodOx unitarian Oh ,no
school of John Stuart Mill subsequently nc W
oor,o an evolutionist in the special implication u
Tho doctrine as developed by Mr.. Darwin O."
,vi,b;, the domain of animal and vegetable Hie
Noxt no fell in with the widencd and deepeheu
stream of speculation which Mr.. spencer "i'0"ou
for evolution to the solution OF All c'ii'0"i o."
sociological problems Still later ne was s'ni"''o~
1v the study of Mr.. Henry Sedgwlcks " Hle'hoos u
Ftbicsv TO hospitable recognition OF soiuo u ~.
80 sriritnai relations of ethical problems VINCE
Mil at least had overlooked. Indeed the .lhnueneo
Of each and all these writers can be very easily ulS
oo,uod in the theories which Mr. Stephen proposes
:; his ,,olnmc and in the answer which he gives 10
them.
afr Stephen entities his treatise The Science OF
r+hics > and ", do not need to read many chapters
q la convinced that to the word science IN TINS APP
nlication he attaches special significance ana I'M
variance He is careful to inform his readers very
carly that he assumes no metaphysical or ohtoIoRl
cal basis rs the foundation OF his researches nc
tells them that were he to walt Till such paS's
sbould be furnished, Re must wait I'LL doo"SddI
inasmuch as no inquiry can be more unsatisfactory
and no results more uncertain than the metaphys
cal The same he asserts to be true oil psycholosy'
which in his view equally unstable ID 1Ouhdatioh
ora snperstructure Science only remains, but
what science Is ana NIdb 10 ChdiHSeNi''S'NN- -
methods he does not define but presumes his
readers and the public to know. And yet his al
nirable capdor shines forth in the concession that
when science comes to he applied to the ethical sab
iectmatter it fails altogether to warrant that posi-
tivoness and completeness Of knowledge, and above
all that confidence OF prediction which character
jZe science when applied TO physics as lts suoJcoV
matter. He borrovs at this point distinctions ana
illustrations from Du Bots Raymond whom douDt-
less his predetermination to avoid all personal rel
erences induced him not TO name, but lals 10 III
troduce those concessions of ignorance concerning
the limitations OF spiritual science and Its method
which his author freely makes. MIR. stephen, now
ever. comedies that science applied in etmcs can
never give the certainty which science as applied
in physics attans, and for the reason that the
forces IN question are always complicated beyond
Tho mower of complete analysis and decisive vcrih-
cation And yet on the other hand, he Insists That
the prominent agencies in question cannot De ms
taken in their more obvious comb nations ana tneir
grand results and therefore it is safe to conclude
in the many cases where we can neither analyze nor
verify that similar forces act and the same laws
hold GOOD as are accepted for the physical domain
The suggestion here intrudes Itself that possibly
freedom and the voluntary pour may be taken as IN
Producing a new subcct-matter which, II 1t does
not require special scientific method, will at least
;ntroduce a peculiar kind Of phenomenon. This
suggestion is no sooner made than it eXcltes tie
generally placid mood of amablc author to
visible heat in protest that if freedom is allowed TO
come in, science must 60 out, either wrathlnlly OF
meeklv but in either case with protest. The eX-
istence and possibility of freedom are once Tor all
summary disposed of as inconsistent with that
assumed uniformity of nature " which is the
necessary posuate of science of every sort SINH
larlv those inductions from sociological phenomena
llc1 nfpai CT fret 100
sumably after the methods of Queteet and Buckle.
arc discarded because analyses and experiment BOTH
fail to he satisfactory and decisive.
What. then. shall we accept as the basis of our
sciencei If ethics is to be treated as science to
the exclusion Of psychology and metaphysics, and
81 the ordinary physical methods fail on what
shall we relyf The answer of Mr.. Stephen is clear
If il is not explicit. We mnst accept the theory OF
social evolution; "a perception that society is
not "A mere aggregate but an organic growth That IL
forms a whole, the laws of whose growth eau DC
studied apart from those of the individual atom.
supplies the most characteristic postulate OF modern
speculation" This is Mr.. Stephens postulate, and
go il comes to this that although page 6, section
G. he had declared that " truths in moral science
are independent of metaphysics" he acknowledges
en- page 81 that the theory of social evolution Is
g the postulas of modern speculation" Had he
written science instead of speculation he wonld have
contradicted himself in words That lie uses specu-
lation in the sense of science Is obvious from the
logic of his argument So it comes to this, that the
writer who had abjured psychology because it
might imply or reveal freedom, and denounced
metaphysics because of its tenuous and uncertain
character has in fact accepted psychology which
subjects physical phenomena TO the laws of physical
necessity, and has laid down an p'7ori metaphys-
ical foundation for his ethical conclusions in the
assumption that society is an organism with
capacity for evolution into organs each of whichis
capable of special function. all OF definite prog