The Washington times., 1895-02-15
Prof. Felix Adler Explains Their
True Relations.
THE POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT
Both Sciences Are in a Transitional State
Failure to Agree Has Hampered Their
Progress-The Practical Side Should Be
Emphasized with Measures and
Motives-Infuence of selfshness

economics was the subject of the regular
Introductory lecture of Prof. Felix Adler at
the School of Applied Ethics in the Colum-
bian University Hall yesterday afternoon.
There was a good-sized and deeply inter-
ested audience present. and the lecture, in
dicating, as it did, the scope and purport OF
the'series, wGs a fine foretaste of the intel
lectual feast promised.
''The four lectures said Prof. Adler.
(which will give are an epitcme of twelve
delivered before the Plymouth School. This
necessitates much curtaiment and condensa-
tior. / shall endeavor to present thoughts
rather than aim at a formal presentation of
the subject
He then went on to say that the science of
economics was at present in a transitional
state There is no agreement as to the fund
amental principles. The so called historical
school tends rather to description than con-
struction. The difference between the econ
omists and ethieists has hampered their
progress. Their respective provinces have
I never been authoritatiyely explained. 1t is
the practical side that should be emphasized.
! Those who live in great cities see these ques-
I
quency Of disturbed economic conditions it is
imperative to devise means of their allay-
ment.
OBSTACLES IN THE WAY.
There are, however, certain economic OBJ
stacles in the way. Moral aid must be given.
Obstacles which prevent the elevation of
mankind must be removed. The economist
finds ethical, and the ethicist economic diff
1 . sx,h W.
toward the same point from different direc-
tions. There is an intermediate state be-
tween the two-not a buffer state, but bor-
derland between. Besides this. each has a
realm independent of the other-the domains
OF pure ethics and pure economics.
Pure ethics deals with and measures mo-
tives of human conduct. Economics deals
ton OF wealth, and is also science Of mo-
tives.
The ethical should also prevail in the
economic sphere. How can this be brought
about? In the first place little value can be
placed on exhortation. The hortatory
method deals too much in generalities. 1t is
too abstract and has no practical applica-
ton. Either Pharisaical assent will follow
or, like Emerson, the bearer will withdraw
from the world, knowing that in the bush he
may meet God. This is worse than the first
state. for the unscrupulous are left behind to
drag down the world. Ethics must be crys-
talized into practical questions.
The field of ethico-eeonomics is common
ground. The economists considers the FEAST
bility OF motives put forth by the ethicist.
Motives not feasible are not moral. Morality
was not given for angels. II a motive be
moral, it must be possible of execution.
Ethics give motives; economics give facts.
HOW TO SPEED MORAL EVOLUTION.
There are two ways to speed the moral eyo-
luton OF society. First consider what checks
can be imposed to soften the harshness of
economic egotism or sel1shness Secondly
consider whether or not selflshness as lead
ing motive, is necessary to the industrial
efficiency OF mankind. What checks can we
put on selfishness? Beginning with the cent
ury. especially in England, the principle of
laissez faire prevailed to its EXTREMIST results.
Later the law has stepped in and declared
that economic advantage cannot use the labor
of children and women without restrictions
Economic egotism is each day more and more
limited by the state. So far has this feeling
gone that London Glasgow and Birmingham
built tenements for the working classes so as
TO do away with the evils of the old system.
The living wage for the employe will in
time be insisted upon. The docker's strike in
London was a demonstration in favor of this
principle. The ethicist can join with the
economist in pointing out infractions OF the
ROlueQ Iule, DuL LHS GLQIclSL SQOQiQ hot go
into the economic sphere, as some misguided
moralists are trying to do.
The impression largely prevails that with
out selfishness the world could not subsist
1t is expressed in the formula that men desire
maximum OF satisfaction at the exnense of
the minimum of labor. This is an error
What man wants is a sufficiency. Safety
follows over qualification of desire. Man is
not lazy dog. Labor is mans true felicity.
1t is important, however, 10 distinguish be-
tween labor and drudgery.
IT Is A FALLAcIoUs IDEA.
On abstract moral grounds the idea of the
influence of selfishness is a fallacious one
One may get all he can out of nature. but he
should not obtrude on the rights of his fellow
man. The Kantian formula is that every
human being is an end in himself.
Selfshness may be criticised on concrete
moral grounds. The theory is that if each
one pursues his interest the interests of all
will be secured This meretricious idea
comes from France, from Rosseau, the author
of the Social Contract" Why has Anglo
Saxon common-sense given way to Gallo va
garies2 This individualism is based on the
idea that all men are equal, but this is untrue.
Men are unequal in morality, mentality, and
all the relations of life.
story of the wolves, who accused the shep-
herd of impertinence in protecting the sheep.
and who told the sheep that they were badly
deceived. 1--WE are wolves" said they, "and
we like the meat of the sheep, but you are
our equals. We will try to eat you. You will
try to eat US, and we will neither of us sue
ceed in our purpose, and dwell together in
unity" But the fate of the sheep is known.
CLIPPING NEPTUNE's CLAWS.
Ii ir10 Tn far al Dra