The morning journal-courier., 1908-06-22

CT or later get at some consistent principle to guide him in these de- clsions.
 This principle we call hls philoso- phy of life, A child can perhaps get on without such philosophy, content to decide each question under the controlling impulse or controlling force of the moment X man cannot at least not unless he Is content to remain intellectually and morally child He cannot act on one prln- ciple at one moment and another principle at another moment and ex- 1 pect anybody else to trust him He will have no stability of character; nay, if we are to define character as the habit of doing the same thing un- der different circumstances, he will be destitute of character itself, If you know what sort of principles a man Is governed by, you can tell approXi- 1 mately what 10 rely upon, If he Is good you can have confidence in his honor and integrity. If he Is bad, you can have confidence in his selnshness. If he Is neither good nor bad, you cannot have any confidence in him at all-"a double minded man." as the Scripture characterizes him, "un- stable In all his ways;' and the same Scripture runs, Let not that man think he shall receive anything of the Lord"
 That kind of man no one wants to be. The childish attempt to decide each question as 1t arises, according 10 Its supposed importance, without any general philosophy of conduct, we may dismiss as an unworthy soluton of life's problem. But what more consistent solution can we seek?
 The number of philosophies of life which have been devised is, suppose, as great as the number of different varieties of human character But to the civilized man of the present day there are four and believe only four, of these different philosophies that appeal strongly; those of the epi- curean, the ascetlc, the Stole and the Christian. Each of these four views of life has it's devotees Each makes at one time or another Its strong claim for our adherence He who would understand his own thinking and that of the men about him must see what these several philosophies promise He who would make con sistent use of his own life must make choice between them-and hold to the choice once made.
 The Epicurean philosophy of life, which Is also known by the name of rational egolsm. may be fairly stated as follows: Man, like every other ami maj, seeks his own happiness He may think that he has a choice be- tween different courses of action, and deliberately chooses the one that gives him less happiness; but this. says the Epicurean, ,s a delusion If indulge to excess in eating and drinking. while you submit yourself to the strict reg linen of the training table. you may think that choose pleasure and you choose pain; but what really happens
 Is that you have learned to prefer the higher kind of pleasure Of sound physical health and successful pur- suit of sport 10 the lower pleasure of qualification of animal appetite
 Therefore, say the epicurean, lot us
 frankly recognize that all conduct
 and especially all calculated conduct Is selfish conduct; and let us regulate our choices that we prefer the higher pleasures to the lower ones.
 This was the argument of the epicu rean philosophy of life, as stated by the anclents The modern world hal developed another and even nor, spacious, set of argumentss in i favor.
 A hundred years ago people al over the civilized world were sudden ly accorded great degree of libert, to follow their own pleasure and con suit their own interests. Conservativ men thought that this would result il the destruction of society Tn poin of fact, It resulted In It's improvement By giving a man the right 10 liv where he pleased you got a bette distribution of population than if yo
 compelled each man 10 live where h = was born. By encouraging everybod
 to produce what the public was will
 ing to pay for, you supplied the pub ? lie with things 1t needed more full
 than when you compelled everybod g to follow his fathers trade In thes n lines and In many others it appeare, - that the intelligent effort of each in V dividual to better himself resulted fl 4 his doing more service to the commu Q nity, instead of less service. The mod y ern rational egoist goes SO far as L :; claim that the intelligent pursuit O i the higher kinds of happiness by eacl ' individual man not only gives the bes
 results for him as an individual bu
 the best results for the community 0
 which he Is member; or, in othe - words, that rational sellshness an, e rational unselhshness tend to coin
 eide
 z This view of life Is widely held more widely at the present day thai d ever before. Yet as a philosophy O | conduct 1t has certain faults whicI IL may wreck the individual and mus if certainly wreck the nation that adopt - it.
 q To begin with, 1t is not true that ra Y iona selhshness and rational unset e flshnees always tend to coincide Ii < not true that the selhshness of the iii ee dividual will always worl out what
 best for the nation. To certain i, cin
 f. may; beyond that point 1t ealphati
 c"lly does not, This is no plac, to dis - tIlSs how far the eeif-interest of th
 tralers helps the consumer or Jus
 where f begin, 10 hurt him more ths
 it helps him lt is sufficient to ga
 that in many parts of the socGLl orde u we have passed the bound where gal n cuiated selhsehress does sood, al have reached the place where 1t doe
 harm. All our great social problems
 from the economic problem of inonor
 oly to the moral problem of divorce
 have their roots in the fact that th
 calculatIng selnshness of the indiYlduf