New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-04
EVOLUTION AND ETHICS.
a NEW CRITIC WHO AGREES NEITHER
WITH HUXLEY NOR WITH BENJA-
MIN KIDD.

46. Houghton. Mfiin Co.
One Of the popular books Of the year 1894 was
Benjamin Kidd's elaborate essay on Social Ev-
olution." While Professor Harris's work Is
neither imitation Of that book, nor reply TO
It In a specific sense the one looks to the other
plainly for a first motive. Professor Harris is
as much critic Of Huxley Of Spencer. OF Buckle
Of Nordau. as Of Kidd: but 1t was. after ALL Mr.
Kids effort to show that society and the indi-
v'dual are really at war; that the one cannot ad-
vance without cramping distortng and destroy
ing the other, which provoked him to write. IT
Is too much to hope that his book will be looked
upon as the phenomenon Of year as was Mr.
Kids or even the sensation OF a summer, as was
Dr. Nordau's An element of unreason. OF alb
normality must be manifest In work OF this
kind to make 1t popular. People who consent
to read It want to hear the FOOLS bells Jingle. and
to find an epigram occasionally that they can
apply to their neighbors; just as, in reading
novel, one finds according to gender. ones own
traits in hero or heroine and the foibles of ones
dearest friend in the villains Of the piece. Pro-
fessor Harris is not wholly superior TO this man.
ner of speaking for effect. He alludes with at
least momentary approval to the cynical dictum
Of Hobbies that people ere gratfed by the mis-
fortunes and sorrows OF their friends But on
the whole he Is epigrammatic. not at the ex-
pense Of humanity, but in its favor He holds
the middle way between the pessimism Of Scho-
penhauer and that Leibnitzian optimism which
provoked Voltaire.
Professor Harris illustrates the frrationality
Of popular favor when 1t comes to philosophical
theories by a comparison between Buckle ana
his fragnentary history Of civilization. ana Mr..
Kidd with his scheme Of social evolution. lie
points out that both these authors were un-
tvxvho fhafr
published. and that they leaped almost instantly
into fame. They illustrated their theories from
pretty much the same sources. and yet they ar
rived ut very different conclusions. Buckle the
sensation OF the year 1857, decided that human
progress was wholly intellectual and that no ad-
vance was possible In morals. because the prin-
ciples of morality were already fixed. On the
other hand. Mr.. Kidd as interpreted by PROFESSOR
Harris maintains that human progress IL not
primarily intellectual but is almost wholly
moral As to one point. which Professor Harris
does not mention both these popular authors
were agreed. They looked upon freedom OF the
will as a mere Pigment OF the IMAGINATION
Buckles illustration drawn from the records OF
the English postofice showing the unvarylng
number from year TO year of misdirected or un-
addressed letters. has become classical. In MT.
Kidd's case a denial OF freedom follows abso-
kind has any sanction in individual reason.
II IL curious that Professor Harris omits this
point. for he himself an expert in ethics, at
tacks the problem OF determinism at the first
onportunity His solution embodies the opinion
that both necessity and freedom belong 10 our
way OF looking at things. but not necessarily TO
the external world. They are mental facts. both
OF which seem to correspond to outer conditions
Consequently the assertion Of the one does not
amount to a denia, Of the other. In practice
man Is always ready TO resent any imputation
on his power to choose what he will do and what
he will not do In theory. especially after look
ing over his mistakes he Is glad to have an IT.
revocable fate on which he can throw the blame
OF his errors and wrongdoing. 1t Is this latter
feeling which puts comfort into opinions really
humiliating. like Buckles doctrine OF averages
or Mr. Kidds assertion that human advance
ment Is irrational process.
1t amuses Professor Harris TO observe the In
consistency Of the popular thought, tickled forty
years ago with an involuntary intellectualism,
and now equally delighted with an equally invol-
,ntary morality Unlike the children In the mar
ket place. unlike the stfY-necked generation OF
old" says he, "our fathers mourned when MT.
Buckle walled, and their sons danced when MI.
Kidd piped" But his real criticism upon MI.
Kidd is similar to that which he makes upon the
two great naturalists. Wallace and Huxley.
namely. that having taken up evolution. they all
deny its efficiency IN the moral world lie does
not pretend to be an evolutionist from independ-
ent study, though he accepts the theory heartily
on the testimony Of those who advocate IT, But
he sees that Mr.. Wallace no sooner approaches
the non-physcal problems of the world than ne
draws a line beyond which evolution ceases to
act The powers Of animals have nothing In
ot,fvQ ~
can trace evolution somewhat further Mans
moral nature may have originated FROM animals
as his physical nature has; but actual goodness
IA on another plane above different from, and In
dependent Of the evolution Of the lower orders
With Kidd evolution as a struggle for existence
and survival pervades the whole history OF men,
Intellectually they are just what they must be
according to the evolutionary scheme. But the
fund Of atruistic feeling accumulated by social
secretion in a way mysterious, ultra-ratlonal'
supernatural. pays out interest as morality TO
that high level man at last swings himself up
quite free and clear Of evolution.
Against all this sort OF thing Professor Harris
opposes the fact that mans nature is a unity. and
his history unbrokenly continuous. III evoiu-
ton accompanies him any appreciate distance
on his Journey, II will stick 10 him to the emo
On the other hand II Is untrue that evolution IN
morals is wholly a matter Of physical environ
ment, for then Pascals satire might come true
in the highest sense. and an act that was wrong
on one side Of the Pyrenees be right on the other
Professor Harris views ethics and evolution as
harmonious but not identical. In order to bring
about this harmony ne Views evolution In the same
light as Asa Gray and the more recent German
Neutrality-suspicious.. He sees In 1t an element OF
ana, cause Nothing could be further from
Darwin's idea. 1t absolutely destroys the whole
fabric of the "Origin Of Species; and yet. OF
course. It is indispensable II evolution Is to be
extended from natural science over the whole
realm Of knowledge.
n II were not for the popularity Of the word