New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-07-14
duty and in God arc nearly dead, as somo would

have us believe. 49,, NJ
But what is the theory of ethics wh'c" W.
Stephen derives from this postuate OF soc'"i W.
tionf 1t Is not easy to answer In lew "or'S' '.'
we gather it is something like the following no
tho individual atoms are developed into higher
forms of being and at last emerge into ih'eieo'""
and emotional life. they come into a condition oi
oeneraI organic existence which is the analogon OIL
vitalized structure in living plant or animal
This the author calls social tissue" What Is tho
nature of this tissue in terms Of human experience
and activity he does not carefully explain "o
must suppose il to be that common sympatl' anu
impulsiveness to united action which connects man
with man. Out of this common STRUCTURE u"'
the operation of evolution, special organs ~
evolved such he Family the Ne'gHoo,"oUU.
State etc These perform special anu b.
activities on which the entire organism uepcn.'
each of which the individuals concerned particto'
consciously and unconsclOusly now ac"nS -
direct purpose now acting unwttingly' anu .or
The special ends of cach all OF winch ao' ,t or
inmate IN the common whole. That conuuo' u
activity of each which terminates IN soo'"i 90
CT the natural well-being OF the social ORGANISM
whole is good. When such conduct piooco"' I'LL,
,ro,,oilirr, oud ovorconling desire 1t Is hoiaiS
coo1 and when prevailing and prcdomlhaole' ~ 20
GOOD of character Sucn conduct. OF COURSE 0""'
Goth tho consenting response of the soclal organism
tbrouph IFS spccal organs and the underlying o'"'
Itch oc,s in and Through them all. These
RESPONSIVE emotions explain oDugatioh' nicI'', "N
the phenomena of conscience. The stahu"ru VI
oordrct and character as morally right and wrong
varies with the social apprehension OF tie relation
of either to social vitality or social strength 'ho
progress OF morality depends on the dis'ihcV on-
forcement of social appreciation or dIsapploua'io"'
and the recognition Of and response to thls oy 'o
moral subject. There is no absolute assurance VI
moral progress under the operation OF social evou-
ton All that we say upon this point Is 'ha' .'io
moral forces oftenest prevail in that direction uhuer
the observed and verified law of evolution.
This is briefly stated the authors theory. So far
as it derives ethical relations, ethical sanctions ana
ethical emotions from mans social constitution, IL
is in principle the with that taught by hoDncs
and Adam Smith and many other writer's Hobbies
founded society on fear and resolved all moral sus
capabilities into self-regard selfshness making
man hostile to his fellow resolving moral obligation
into positive law dictated by necessity. AGAIN
Smith, on the other hand resolved moral susceptl-
bilites into the capacity for sympathy, whlle he
recognized disinteIested love for man as man. az
an essential and original endowment OF human
nature. The theory which Leslie stephen nous III
common with the two is also recognized by Locke
os q the law of opinion" 1t scarcely needs be
added that the recognition of society rs an organism
which is constantly animated by tendency toward
evolution from the simple to the complex III It's CON
stituents and forms, greatly enriches the social
theory of morality and explains great variety VI
ethical experiences and phenomena when IL - eA-
pounded under reasonable limitations Adam
smiths theory OF the moral sentiments is, however
in its wav as fascinating i'll extent as is Stephens
system of ethics, while it contains fewer paradoxes
and otiends the moral convictions of men by fewer
violent assaults and less of confusing sophStry
There can be no question on the part Of any thinker
whose oDlnons are entitled to respect that the
moral judgments and emotions are to large extent
modified by social elements nor that many oil THESE
elements act with the resistless energy OF physlcal
agencies and the undertaking certainty OF physlcai
laws 1t cannot be doubted that TO certain extent
the law of development or evolution holds good In
the formation of social tissue" and the growth OF
the social organism, these are related 10 the morai
code and the ethical emotions. No one can question
that to q very large extent morality as a doctrine
and as an emotion is matter Of growth and cul-
ture of progress and development. So far men are
AGREED. The question in respect to which they
differ is this: Is not the nucleus or germ from
which this development ultimately proceeds to be
found in the individual man Can explain how
the social tissue and the social organism could be-
come ethical if the individual were not first
"orranized" as ethical, with capacity as an ndi
vidual for ethical development and ethical prog
ressl If society is an organism. is not the man
also an organismf Could man become an acknowl-
edged aw-gver to his fellow men by reason OF his
social relations he not first capable of beng
law-civer to hirnselfi Could he respond to the
commands of others unless he first accepted his own
authority TO bind or loose hmselfi These questions
Mr. Stephen does not ask. He does not seem to
recognize the possibility that they may occur to
otbera He proceeds with the utmost confidence in
his reasonings, as though the element of necessity
and social evolution could account for all the phe
nomena in question, because they are coniessedy
present in portion of the same. He reasons there
can be no freedom nay, moral freedom is a philo-
sophical and practical absurdity because necessity
and growth prevail very widely. lie, moreover,
fails TO distinguish between the matter of actions
determined by circumstances and obeylng the law
of necessity and the form or extent of the same as
the product of freedom. He contends for the
permanence of character as necessarily involving
the prevailing influence of environment without
growth within, and fails to recognize the truth that
a steady growth within adapting itself to circum-
stances without indicates something in personality
for which his philosophy utterly fails to provide
and does not even recognize as possible.
We have necessarily limited ourselves to the con-
sideTaOn OF rev OF The cnaIacleIlstlc leduIeS Oh
this treatise. While we regard its underlying
theory as defective and therefore often most erro
neous and at times paradoxical and grossly often
sive we find in it many very interesting discussions
and not infrequently acute criticisms upon the
nhenomena of human nature and philosophical
theories We cannot say that 1t is fitted to inspire
enthusiasm of any kind. either in mans nature or
mans destiny, or in the moral order of the uni
verse. or the wisdom and goodness which control it,
Abundant as the volume is in acute obser' atoms
and felicitous determinations we find little in it
that is fitted to kindle either admiration, hope
love" We give a few passages of the hopeless and
contemptuous sort: Il" Here we are approaching the
inevitable free will puzzle. / am content to say