The sun., 1897-03-14

In the last OF the five essays in this volume,
that, namely, on Morality and Theism," Mr..
Goldwin Smith considers the question whether
the practice OF virtue is dependent on belief
In overruling Providence. He begins by con-
ceding frankly that evolution is not moral.
There is nothing moral in the struggle for exist
encc or in natural selection. SO much bold evo-
lutionists. such as Haeckol. admit. An organism
docs not regulate its own stage Of evolution,
nor does 1t select itself or ondow itself with tho
strength which will enable 1t to triumph in the
struggle for existence. II is not answorabo for
its own propensitcs. which may bc those OF
philanthropist or those OF an assassin. Of a hui
man being OF tiger. II It survives in the
struggle for existence, Its survival must DO
that Of tho fttest and therefore suf-
ficicnt Justification. The ultimate tendency
OF things may be agains. IL, as IL Is
against the propcnsitles OF tigers, those OF tho
human tiger, perhaps, as well as those OF tho
tiger Of tho jungle. This, however. does not
mako It the duty OF the offensive organism TO
cooperate in its own elimination, or to refrain
from gratifying its natural proponsitics whio 1t
exists. The author goes on to point out that, so
far as social morality depends on tho sanctity OF
human life. or Of mankind generally. II can
hardly fail to be threatened by evolution, which
levels men In respect OF origin. and, as some
have begun to believe in respect OF destiny with
other animals. The story is recalled that o
German ply siologist OF tho extreme revolution
airy school said to Agassiz that the kingdom OF
science would have really come when VIC could
go out and shoot a for the purpose
OF dissection. "of course" replied Agassiz,
you will take fine specimen. n Goethe or a
Won Humboldt" We have still. no doubt tho
old tribal interest in safeguarding our own In.
terests. and this will lead us to hang n murderer
when we catch him. But the murderer who. BY
his cunning, escapes tho galiows, and perhaps
comes into the enjoyment OF wealth. out OF
which the life which he has taken would have
kept him. why should he feel. asks our author,
any more rcmorsc than he would have felt, IL he
had taken the life Of dog Let us suppose. no
continues, that the life OF a child stands between
needy man and great estate; that ho puts an
end TO the childs lifo in such n way as to escape
detection. enters into tho estate, lives q life OF
ease and afiiuence, instead OF struggling for
bread, spends his money well and enjoys tho
good will OF the people among whom hc lives;
why 10 ho to feel remorsei or, IL no has
twingc Of It, why is he not 10 rcpress IL, as no
would any other unpleasant emotion or bodily
pain 1t Is true that wo speak OF the brother
hood OF man as our great security for mutual
benevolence and our high inducement for virtu-
Gus effort. But is 1t, asks Mr.. Goodwin
smith, an absolute certainty that men arc
brothcrsi Has science pronounced dccisively
In favor OF the unity OF the racci Some men OF
science certainly have pronounced on the other
side. Again, does not brotherhood imply COM
mon paternity, and where is the common pater-
nifty unless we have all father In God u II that
idea is set aside, are we not as much competitors
as brothers,