,the ,ethical ,library    ,,social      
,,rights ,,and ,,duties    ,addresses to
 ,ethical ,societies    by    ,,leslie  
,,stephen    ,in ,two ,volumes    ,,vol4
 ,i4          ,london  ,swan            
,sonnenschein  ,co41 ,limited  ,new     
,york3 ,mac,millan  ,co4  #ahif         
,,note4      ,the following chapters are
 chiefly a republication of addresses   
delivered to the ,ethical ,societies of 
,london4 ,some have previously  appeared
 in the ,international ,journal of      
,ethics1 the ,national  ,review1 and the
 ,contemporary ,review4 ,the author has 
to thank the  proprietors of these      
periodicals for their consent to the    
republication4    ,l4 ,s4               
,,contents4                             
,,page    ,,the ,,aims ,,of ,,ethical   
,,societies1                          #a
    ,,science ,,and ,,politics1         
#de    ,,the ,,sphere ,,of ,,political  
,,economy1                       #ia    
,,the ,,morality ,,of ,,competition1    
#acc    ,,social ,,equality1            

#age    ,,ethics ,,and ,,the ,,struggle 
,,for ,,existence1                #bba  
,,the ,,aims ,,of ,,ethical             
,,societies4#a      ,i am about to say a
 few words upon the aims of this        
society3 and ,i  should be sorry either 
to exaggerate or to depreciate our      
legitimate  pretensions4 ,it would be   
altogether impossible to speak too      
strongly of  the importance of the great
 questions in which our membership of   
the  society shows us to be interested4 
,it would1 ,i fear1 be easy enough to   
make an over-estimate of the part which 
we can expect to play in their          
solution4 ,i hold indeed1 or ,i should  
not be here1 that we may be of  some    
service at any rate to each other4 ,i   
think that anything which  stimulates an
 active interest in the vital problems  
of the day deserves  the support of all 
thinking men2 and ,i propose to consider
 briefly some  of the principles by     
which we should be guided in doing      
whatever we can  to promote such an     

interest4          #a ,address to ,west 
,london ,ethical ,society1 #dth         
,december1 #ahib4    ,we are told often 
enough that we are living in a period of
 important  intellectual and social     
revolutions4 ,in one way we are perhaps 
inclined  even to state the fact a      
little too strongly4 ,we suffer at times
 from  the common illusion that the     
problems of to-day are entirely new3 we 
fancy that nobody ever thought of them  
before1 and that when we have  solved   
them1 nobody will ever need to look for 
another solution4 ,to  ardent reformers 
in all ages it seems as if the          
millennium must begin  with their       
triumph1 and that their triumph will be 
established by a  single victory4 ,and  
while some of us are thus sanguine1     
there are many  who see in the struggles
 of to-day the approach of a deluge     
which is to  sweep away all that once   
ennobled life4 ,the believer in the old 
creeds1  who fears that faith is        
decaying1 and the supernatural life     

fading from  the world1 denounces the   
modern spirit as materialising and      
degrading4  ,the conscience of mankind1 
he thinks1 has become drugged and       
lethargic2  our minds are fixed upon    
sensual pleasures1 and our conduct      
regulated  by a blind struggle for the  
maximum of luxurious enjoyment4 ,the    
period  in his eyes is a period of      
growing corruption2 modern society      
suffers  under a complication of mortal 
diseases1 so widely spread and deeply   
seated that at present there is no hope 
of regeneration4 ,the best hope  is that
 its decay may provide the soil in which
 seed may be sown of a  far-distant     
growth of happier augury4 ,such dismal  
forebodings are no  novelty4 ,every age 
produces its prophecies of coming woes4 
,nothing  would be easier than to make  
out a catena of testimonies from great  
men  at every stage of the world's      
history1 declaring each in turn that the
  cup of iniquity was now at last       
overflowing1 and that corruption had    

reached so unprecedented a step that    
some great catastrophe must be          
approaching4 ,a man of unusually lofty  
morality is1 for that reason1  more     
keenly sensitive to the lowness of the  
average standard1 and too  easily       
accepts the belief that the evils before
 his eyes must be in  fact greater1 and 
not1 as may perhaps be the case1 only   
more vividly  perceived1 than those of  
the bygone ages4 ,a call to repentance  
easily  takes the form of an assertion  
that the devil is getting the upper     
hand2 and we may hope that the pessimist
 view is only a form of the  discontent 
which is a necessary condition of       
improvement4 ,anyhow1 the  diametrical  
conflict of prophecies suggests one     
remark which often  impresses me4 ,we   
are bound to call each other by terribly
 hard names4 ,a  gentleman assures me in
 print that ,i am playing the devil's   
game2  depriving my victims1 if ,i have 
any1 of all the beliefs that can make   
life noble or happy1 and doing my best  

to destroy the very first  principles of
 morality4 ,yet ,i meet my adversary in 
the flesh1 and find  that he treats me  
not only with courtesy1 but with no     
inconsiderable  amount of sympathy4 ,he 
admits--by his actions and his          
argument--that  ,i--the miserable       
sophist and seducer--have not only some 
good impulses1  but have really         
something to say which deserves a       
careful and  respectful answer4 ,an     
infidel1 a century or two ago1 was      
supposed to  have forfeited all claim to
 the ordinary decencies of life4 ,now ,i
 can  say1 and can say with real        
satisfaction1 that ,i do not find any   
difference of creed1 however vast in    
words1 to be an obstacle to decent  and 
even friendly treatment4 ,i am at times 
tempted to ask whether my  opponent can 
be quite logical in being so courteous2 
whether1 if he is  as sure as he says   
that ,i am in the devil's service1 ,i   
ought not1 as a  matter of duty1 to be  
encountered with the old dogmatism and  

arrogance4  ,i shall1 however1 leave my 
friends of a different way of thinking  
to  settle that point for themselves4 ,i
 cannot doubt the sincerity of their    
courtesy1 and ,i will hope that it is   
somehow consistent with their  logic4   
,rather ,i will try to meet them in a   
corresponding spirit by a  brief        
confession4 ,i have often enough spoken 
too harshly and vehemently  of my       
antagonists4 ,i have tried to fix upon  
them too unreservedly what  seemed to me
 the logical consequences of their      
dogmas4 ,i have condemned  their        
attempts at a milder interpretation of  
their creed as proofs of  insincerity1  
when ,i ought to have done more justice 
to the legitimate  and lofty motives    
which prompted them4 ,and ,i at least am
 bound by my  own views to admit that   
even the antagonist from whose          
utterances ,i  differ most widely may be
 an unconscious ally1 supplementing     
rather  than contradicting my theories1 
and in great part moved by aspirations  

which ,i ought to recognise even when   
allied with what ,i take to be          
defective reasoning4 ,we are all        
amenable to one great influence4 ,the   
vast shuttle of modern life is weaving  
together all races and creeds  and      
classes4 ,we are no longer shut up in   
separate compartments1 where  the mental
 horizon is limited by the area visible 
from the parish  steeple2 each little   
section can no longer fancy1 in the old 
childish  fashion1 that its own         
arbitrary prejudices and dogmas are     
parts of the  eternal order of things2  
or infer that in the indefinite region  
beyond1  there live nothing but monsters
 and anthropophagi1 and men whose heads 
grow beneath their shoulders4 ,the      
annihilation of space has made us       
fellows as by a kind of mechanical      
compulsion2 and every advance of        
knowledge has increased the             
impossibility of taking our little      
church--little in comparison with       
mankind1 be it even as great as the     

,catholic ,church--for the one pattern  
of right belief4 ,the first effect  of  
bringing remote nations and classes into
 closer contact is often an  explosion  
of antipathy2 but in the long run it    
means a development of  human sympathy4 
,wide1 therefore1 as is the opposition  
of opinions as to  what is the true     
theory of the world--as to which is the 
divine and  which the diabolical        
element--,i fully believe that beneath  
the war of  words and dogmas there is a 
growth of genuine toleration1 and1 we   
must  hope1 of ultimate conciliation4   
,this is manifest in another direction4 
,the churches are rapidly making  at    
least one discovery4 ,they are beginning
 to find out that their  vitality       
depends not upon success in theological 
controversy1 but upon  their success in 
meeting certain social needs and        
aspirations common to  all classes4 ,it 
is simply impossible for any thinking   
man at the  present day to take any     
living interest1 for example1 in the    

ancient  controversies4 ,the drum       
ecclesiastic of the seventeenth century 
would  sound a mere lullaby to us4 ,here
 and there a priest or a belated        
dissenting minister may amuse himself by
 threshing out once more the  old chaff 
of dead and buried dogmas4 ,there are   
people who can argue  gravely about     
baptismal regeneration or apostolical   
succession4 ,such  doctrines were once  
alive1 no doubt1 because they           
represented the form  in which certain  
still living problems had then to       
present themselves4  ,they now require  
to be stated in a totally different     
shape1 before we  can even guess why    
they were once so exciting1 or how men  
could have  supposed their modes of     
attacking the question to be adequate4  
,the ,pope  and ,general ,booth still   
condemn each other's tenets2 and in case
 of  need would1 ,i suppose1 take down  
the old rusty weapons from the  armoury4
 ,but each sees with equal clearness    
that the real stress of  battle lies    

elsewhere4 ,each tries1 after his own   
fashion1 to give a  better answer than  
the ,socialists to the critical problems
 of to-day4  ,we ought so far to        
congratulate both them and ourselves on 
the  direction of their energies4 ,nay1 
can we not even co-operate1 and put     
these hopeless controversies aside8 ,why
 not agree to differ about the          
questions which no one denies to be all 
but insoluble1 and become  allies in    
promoting morality8 ,enormous social    
forces find their natural  channel      
through the churches2 and if the beliefs
 inculcated by the  church were not1 as 
believers assert1 the ultimate cause of 
progress1  it is at least clear that    
they were not incompatible with         
progress4 ,the  church1 we all now      
admit1 whether by reason of or in spite 
of its  dogmatic creed1 was for ages one
 great organ of civilisation1 and still 
exercises an incalculable influence4    
,why1 then1 should we1 who cannot       
believe in the dogmas1 yet fall into    

line with believers for practical       
purposes8 ,churches insist verbally upon
 the importance of their dogma3  they   
are bound to do so by their logical     
position2 but1 in reality1 for  them1 as
 for us1 the dogma has become in many   
ways a mere  excrescence--a survival of 
barren formul which do little harm to   
anybody4 ,carlyle1 in his quaint phrase1
 talked about the exodus from           
,houndsditch1 but doubted whether it    
were yet time to cast aside the  ,hebrew
 old clothes4 ,they have become         
threadbare and antiquated4 ,that  gives 
a reason to the intelligent for         
abandoning them2 but1 also1  perhaps a  
reason for not quarrelling with those   
who still care to  masquerade in them4  
,orthodox people have made a demand that
 the ,board  ,schools should teach      
certain ancient doctrines about the     
nature of  ,christ2 and the demand      
strikes some of us as preposterous if   
not  hypocritical4 ,but putting aside   
the audacity of asking unbelievers to   

pay for such teaching1 one might be     
tempted to ask1 what harm could it      
really do8 ,do you fancy for a moment   
that you can really teach a child  of   
ten the true meaning of the             
,incarnation8 ,can you give him more    
than  a string of words as meaningless  
as magical formul8 ,i was brought up  at
 the most orthodox of ,anglican         
seminaries4 ,i learned the ,catechism1  
and heard lectures upon the ,thirty-nine
 ,articles4 ,i never found that  the    
teaching had ever any particular effect 
upon my mind4 ,as ,i grew up1  the      
obsolete exuvi of doctrine dropped off  
my mind like dead leaves  from a tree4  
,they could not get any vital hold in an
 atmosphere of  tolerable enlightenment4
 ,why should we fear the attempt to     
instil these  fragments of decayed      
formul into the minds of children of    
tender age8  ,might we not be certain   
that they would vanish of themselves8   
,they are  superfluous1 no doubt1 but   
too futile to be of any lasting         

importance4  ,i remember that1 when the 
first ,education ,act was being         
discussed1  mention was made of a       
certain ,jew who not only sent his son  
to a  ,christian school1 but insisted   
upon his attending all the lessons4 ,he 
had paid his fees1 he said1 for         
education in the ,gospels among other   
things1 and he meant to have his money's
 worth4 ,but your son1 it was  urged1   
will become a ,christian4 ,i1 he        
replied1 will take good care  of that at
 home4 ,was not the ,jew a man of sense8
 ,can we suppose that  the mechanical   
repetition of a few barren phrases will 
do either harm  or good8 ,as the child  
develops he will1 we may hope1 remember 
his  multiplication table1 and forget   
his fragments of the ,athanasian ,creed4
  ,let the wheat and tares be planted   
together1 and trust to the superior     
vitality of the more valuable plant4    
,the sentiment might be expressed       
sentimentally as easily as cynically4   
,we may urge1 like many sceptics  of the

 last century1 that ,christianity should
 be kept for the use of  the poor1 and  
renounced in the esoteric creed of the  
educated4 ,or we  may urge the literary 
and sthetic beauty of the old training1 
and wish  it to be preserved to         
discipline the imagination1 though we   
may reject  its value as a historical   
statement of fact4    ,the audience     
which ,i am addressing has1 ,i presume1 
made up its mind  upon such views4 ,they
 come too late4 ,it might have been a   
good thing1  had it been possible1 to   
effect the transition from old to new   
without  a violent convulsion3 good1 if 
,christian conceptions had been slowly  
developed into more simple forms2 if the
 beautiful symbols had been  retained   
till they could be impregnated with a   
new meaning2 and if the  new teaching of
 science and philosophy had gradually   
percolated into  the ancient formul     
without causing a disruption4 ,possibly 
the  ,protestant ,reformation was a     
misfortune1 and ,erasmus saw the truth  

more  clearly than ,luther4 ,i cannot go
 into might-have-beens4 ,we have to deal
  with facts4 ,a conspiracy of silence  
is impossible about matters which  have 
been vehemently discussed for centuries4
 ,we have to take sides2  and we at     
least have agreed to take the side of   
the downright thinker1  who will say    
nothing that he does not believe1 and   
hide nothing that he  does believe1 and 
speak out his mind without reservation  
or economy and  accommodation4 ,indeed1 
as things are1 any other course seems to
 me to  be impossible4 ,i have spoken1  
for example1 of ,general ,booth4 ,many  
people heartily admire his schemes of   
social reform1 and have been  willing to
 subscribe for its support1 without     
troubling themselves  about his         
theology4 ,i will make no objection2 but
 ,i confess that ,i  could not therefore
 treat that theology as either morally  
or  intellectually respectable4 ,it has 
happened to me once or twice to  listen 
to expositions from orators of the      

,salvation ,army4 ,some of them  struck 
me as sincere though limited1 and others
 as the victims of an  overweening      
vanity4 ,the oratory1 so far as ,i could
 hear1 consisted in  stringing together 
an endless set of phrases about the     
blood of ,christ1  which1 if they really
 meant anything1 meant a doctrine as low
 in the  intellectual scale as that of  
any of the objects of missionary        
enterprise4 ,the conception of the      
transactions between ,god and man was   
apparently modelled upon the dealings of
 a petty tradesman4 ,the blood  of      
,christ was regarded like the panacea of
 a quack doctor1 which will  cure the   
sins of anybody who accepts the         
prescription4 ,for anything ,i  can say1
 such a creed may be                    
elevating--relatively3 elevating as     
slavery is said to have been elevating  
when it was a substitute for            
extermination4 ,the hymns of the ,army  
may be better than public-house         
melodies1 and the excitement produced   

less mischievous than that due to  gin4 
,but the best that ,i can wish for its  
adherents is1 that they  should speedily
 reach a point at which they could      
perceive their  doctrines to be         
debasing4 ,i hope1 indeed1 that they do 
not realise  their own meaning3 but ,i  
could almost as soon join in some old   
pagan  ceremonies1 gash my body with    
knives1 or swing myself from a hook1 as 
indulge in this variety of spiritual    
intoxication4    ,there are1 it is true1
 plenty of more refined and intellectual
  preachers1 whose sentiments deserve at
 least the respect due to tender  and   
humane feeling4 ,they have found a      
solution1 satisfactory to  themselves1  
of the great dilemma which presses on so
 many minds4 ,a  religion really to     
affect the vulgar must be a             
superstition2 to satisfy  the           
thoughtful1 it must be a philosophy4 ,is
 it possible to contrive so  to fuse the
 crude with the refined as to make at   
least a working  compromise8 ,to me     

personally1 and to most of us living at 
the present  day1 the enterprise appears
 to be impracticable4 ,my own experience
 is1  ,i imagine1 a very common one4    
,when ,i ceased to accept the teaching  
of  my youth1 it was not so much a      
process of giving up beliefs1 as of     
discovering that ,i had never really    
believed4 ,the contrast between the     
genuine convictions which guide and     
govern our conduct1 and the  professions
 which we were taught to repeat in      
church1 when once  realised1 was too    
glaring4 ,one belonged to the world of  
realities1 and  the other to the world  
of dreams4 ,the orthodox formul         
represent1 no  doubt1 a sentiment1 an   
attempt to symbolise emotions which     
might be  beautiful1 or to indicate     
vague impressions about the tendency of 
things in general2 but to put them side 
by side with real beliefs about  facts  
was to reveal their flimsiness4 ,the ,i 
believe of the creed  seemed to mean    
something quite different from the ,i   

believe of  politics and history and    
science4 ,later experience has only     
deepened  and strengthened that feeling4
 ,kind and loving and noble-minded      
people  have sought to press upon me the
 consolations of their religion4 ,i     
thank them in all sincerity2 and ,i     
feel1--why should ,i not admit          
it8--that it may be a genuine comfort to
 set your melancholy to the old  strain 
in which so many generations have       
embodied their sorrows and  their       
aspirations4 ,and yet to me1 its        
consolation is an invitation to  reject 
plain facts2 to seek for refuge in a    
shadowy world of dreams and             
conjectures1 which dissolve as you try  
to grasp them4 ,the doctrine  offered   
for my acceptance cannot be stated      
without qualifications and  reserves and
 modifications1 which make it as useless
 as it is vague and  conjectural4 ,i may
 learn in time to submit to the         
inevitable2 ,i cannot  drug myself with 
phrases which evaporate as soon as they 

are exposed to  a serious test4 ,you    
profess to give me the only motives of  
conduct2 and  ,i know that at the first 
demand to define them honestly--to say  
precisely what you believe and why you  
believe it--you will be forced  to      
withdraw1 and explain and evade1 and at 
last retire to the safe  refuge of a    
mystery1 which might as well be admitted
 at starting4 ,as ,i  have read and     
thought1 ,i have been more and more     
impressed with the  obvious explanation 
of these observations4 ,how should the  
beliefs be  otherwise than shadowy and  
illusory1 when their very substance is  
made  of doubts laboriously and         
ingeniously twisted into the semblance  
of  convictions8 ,in one way or other   
that is the characteristic mark of the  
theological systems of the present day4 
,proof is abandoned for  persuasion4    
,the orthodox believer professed once to
 prove the facts  which he asserted and 
to show that his dogmas expressed the   
truth4 ,he  now only tries to show that 

the alleged facts don't matter1 and that
  the dogmas are meaningless4 ,nearly   
two centuries ago1 for example1 a  deist
 pointed out that the writer of the     
,book of ,daniel1 like other  people1   
must have written after the events which
 he mentioned4 ,all the  learned1 down  
to ,dr4 ,pusey1 denounced his theory1   
and declared his  argument to be utterly
 destructive of the faith4 ,now an      
orthodox  professor will admit that the 
deist was perfectly right1 and only     
tries  to persuade himself that         
arguments from facts are superfluous4   
,the  supposed foundation is gone3 the  
superstructure is not to be affected4   
,what the keenest disputant now seeks to
 show is1 not that the truth of  the    
records can be established beyond       
reasonable doubt2 but that no  absolute 
contradiction in terms is involved in   
supposing that they  correspond more or 
less roughly to something which may     
possibly have  happened4 ,so long as a  
thing is not proved false by            

mathematical  demonstration1 ,i may     
still continue to take it for a divine  
revelation1  and to listen respectfully 
when experienced statesmen and learned  
professors assure me with perfect       
gravity that they can believe in        
,noah's flood or in the swine of        
,gadara4 ,they have an unquestionable   
right to believe if they please3 and    
they expect me to accept the facts  for 
the sake of the doctrine4 ,there1       
unluckily1 ,i have a similar            
difficulty4 ,it is the orthodox who are 
the systematic sceptics4 ,the  most     
famous philosophers of my youth         
endeavoured to upset the deist by       
laying the foundation of ,agnosticism1  
arbitrarily tagged to an orthodox       
conclusion4 ,they told me to believe a  
doctrine because it was totally         
impossible that ,i should know whether  
it was true or not1 or indeed  attach   
any real meaning to it whatever4 ,the   
highest altar1 as ,sir ,w4  ,hamilton   
said1 was the altar to the unknown and  

unknowable ,god4 ,others1  seeing the   
inevitable tendency of such methods1    
have done their best to  find in that   
the ,christian doctrine1 rightly        
understood1 the embodiment  of the      
highest philosophy4 ,it is the divine   
voice which speaks in our  hearts1      
though it has caught some accretion of  
human passion and  superstition4 ,the   
popular versions are false and debased2 
the old  versions of the ,atonement1 for
 example1 monstrous2 and the belief in  
the everlasting torture of sinners1 a   
hideous and groundless  caricature4     
,with much that such men have said ,i   
could1 of course1 agree  heartily2 for1 
indeed1 it expresses the strongest      
feelings which have  caused religious   
revolt4 ,but would it not be simpler to 
say1 the  doctrine is not true1 than to 
say1 it is true1 but means just the     
reverse of what it was also taken to    
mean8 ,i prefer plain terms2 and        
without doubt he shall perish           
everlastingly seems to be an awkward    

way of denying the endlessness of       
punishment4 ,you cannot denounce the    
immorality of the old dogmas with the   
infidel1 and then proclaim their        
infinite value with the believer4 ,you  
defend the doctrine by showing  that in 
its plain downright sense1--the sense in
 which it embodied  popular             
imaginations1--it was false and         
shocking4 ,the proposal to hold  by the 
words evacuated of the old meaning is a 
concession of the whole  case to the    
unbeliever1 and a substitution of       
sentiment and aspiration  for a genuine 
intellectual belief4 ,explaining away1  
however dexterously  and delicately1 is 
not defending1 but at once confessing   
error1 and  encumbering yourself with   
all the trammels of misleading          
associations4  ,the more popular method1
 therefore1 at the present day is not to
  rationalise1 but to try to outsceptic 
the sceptic4 ,we are told that we  have 
no solid ground from reason at all1 and 
that even physical science  is as full  

of contradictions as theology4 ,such    
enterprises1 conducted  with whatever   
ingenuity1 are1 as ,i believe1 hopeless2
 but at least they  are fundamentally   
and radically sceptical4 ,that1 under   
whatever  disguises1 is the true meaning
 of the ,catholic argument1 which is so 
persuasive to many4 ,to prove the truth 
of ,christianity by abstract  reasoning 
may be hopeless2 but nothing is easier  
than to persuade  yourself to believe   
it1 if once you will trust instinct in  
place of  reason1 and forget that       
instinct proves anything and everything4
 ,the  success of such arguments with   
thoughtful men is simply a measure of   
the spread of scepticism4 ,the          
conviction that truth is unattainable is
  the master argument for submitting to 
authority4 ,the authority1 in  the      
scientific sense of any set of men who  
agree upon a doctrine1  varies directly 
as their independence of each other4    
,their authority  in the legal sense    
varies as the closeness of their mutual 

dependence4  ,as the consent loses its  
value logically1 it gains in power of   
coercion4 ,and therefore it is easy to  
substitute drilling for arguing1  and to
 take up a belief as you accept         
admission to a society1 as a  matter of 
taste and feeling1 with which abstract  
logic has nothing to  do4 ,the common   
dilemma--you must be a ,catholic or an  
atheist--means1  that theology is only  
tenable if you drill people into belief 
by a vast  organisation appealing to    
other than logical motives4    ,i do not
 argue these points3 ,i only indicate   
what ,i take to be your own  conviction 
as well as mine4 ,it seems to me1 in    
fact1 that the present  state of        
mind--if we look to men's real thoughts 
and actions1 not to  their conventional 
phrases--is easily definable4 ,it is    
simply a tacit  recognition that the old
 orthodoxy cannot be maintained either  
by the  evidence of facts or by         
philosophical argument4 ,it has puzzled 
me  sometimes to understand why the     

churches should insist upon nailing     
themselves down to the truth of their   
dogmas and their legendary  history4    
,why cannot they say frankly1 what they 
seem to be constantly  on the verge of  
saying--,our dogmas and our history are 
not true1 or not  true in the historical
 or scientific sense of the word8 ,to   
ask for  such truth in the sphere of    
theology is as pedantic as to ask for it
 in  the sphere of poetry4 ,poetical    
truth means1 not that certain events    
actually happened1 or that the poetical 
machinery is to be taken as  an existing
 fact2 but that the poem is1 so to      
speak1 the projection of  truths upon   
the cloudland of imagination4 ,it       
reflects and gives  sensuous images of  
truth2 but it is only the ,philistine or
 the  blockhead who can seriously ask1  
is it true8 ,some such position seems   
to be really conceivable as an ultimate 
compromise4 ,put aside the  prosaic     
insistence upon literal matter-of-fact  
truth1 and we may all  agree to use the 

same symbolism1 and interpret it as we  
please4 ,this  seems to me to be        
actually the view of many thoughtful    
people1 though  for obvious reasons it  
is not often explicitly stated4 ,one    
reason is1  of course1 the consciousness
 that the great mass of mankind requires
  plain1 tangible motives for governing 
its life2 and if it once be  admitted   
that so much of the orthodox doctrine is
 mere symbolism or  adumbration of      
truths1 the admission would involve the 
loss of the  truths so indicated4 ,moral
 conduct1 again1 and moral beliefs are  
supposed to depend upon some affirmation
 of these truths2 and excellent  people 
are naturally shy of any open admission 
which may appear to  throw doubt upon   
the ultimate grounds of morality4       
,indeed1 if it could be really proved   
that men have to choose between         
renouncing moral truths and accepting   
unproved theories1 it might be          
right--,i will not argue the point--to  
commit intellectual suicide4 ,if  the   

truth is that we are mere animals or    
mere automata1 shall we  sacrifice the  
truth1 or sacrifice what we have at     
least agreed to call  our higher nature8
 ,for us the dilemma has no force3 for  
we do not admit  the discrepancy4 ,we   
believe that morality depends upon      
something deeper  and more permanent    
than any of the dogmas that have        
hitherto been  current in the churches4 
,it is a product of human nature1 not of
 any of  these transcendental           
speculations or faint survivals of      
traditional  superstitions4 ,morality   
has grown up independently of1 and often
 in  spite of1 theology4 ,the creeds    
have been good so far as they have      
accepted or reflected the moral         
convictions2 but it is an illusion to   
suppose that they have generated it4    
,they represent the dialect and the     
imagery by which moral truths have been 
conveyed to minds at certain  stages of 
thought2 but it is a complete inversion 
of the truth to  suppose that the       

morality sprang out of them4 ,from this 
point of view  we must of necessity     
treat the great ethical questions       
independently4  ,we cannot form a real  
alliance with thinkers radically opposed
 to us4  ,divines tell us that we reject
 the one possible basis of morality4 ,to
  us it appears that we are             
strengthening it1 by severing it from a 
connection with doctrines arbitrary1    
incapable of proof1 and incapable  of   
retaining any consistent meaning4       
,theologians once believed that         
hell-fire was the ultimate sentence1 and
 persecution the absolute duty  of every
 ,christian ruler4 ,the churches which  
once burnt and  exterminated are now    
only anxious to proclaim freedom of     
belief1 and to  cast the blame of       
persecution upon their rivals4 ,divines 
have  discovered that the doctrine of   
hell-fire deserves all that infidels    
have said of it2 and a member of        
,dante's church was arguing the other   
day that hell might on the whole be a   

rather pleasant place of  residence4    
,doctrines which can thus be turned     
inside out are hardly  desirable bases  
for morality4 ,so the early ,christians1
 again1 were the  ,socialists of their  
age1 and took a view of ,dives and      
,lazarus which  would commend itself to 
the ,nihilists of to-day4 ,the church is
 now  often held up to us as the great  
barrier against ,socialism1 and the one 
refuge against subversive doctrines4 ,in
 a well-known essay on ,people  whom one
 would have wished to have seen1 ,lamb  
and his friends are  represented as     
agreeing that if ,christ were to enter  
they would all  fall down and worship   
,him4 ,it may have been so2 but if the  
man who best  represents the ideas of   
early ,christians were to enter a       
respectable  society of to-day1 would it
 not be more likely to send for the     
police8  ,when we consider such changes1
 and mark in another direction how the  
dogmas which once set half the world to 
cut the throats of the other  half1 have

 sunk into mere combinations of hard    
words1 can we seriously  look to the    
maintenance of dogmas1 even in the teeth
 of reason1 as a  guarantee for ethical 
convictions8 ,what you call retaining   
the only  base of morality1 appears to  
us to be trying to associate morality   
with  dogmas essentially arbitrary and  
unreasonable4    ,from this point of    
view it is naturally our opinion that we
 should  promote all thorough discussion
 of great ethical problems in a spirit  
and by methods which are independent of 
the orthodox dogmas4 ,there are  many   
such problems undoubtedly of the highest
 importance4 ,the root of  all the great
 social questions of which ,i have      
spoken lies in the  region of ,ethics2  
and upon that point1 at least1 we can go
 along with  much that is said upon the 
orthodox side4 ,we cannot1 indeed1 agree
 that  ,ethics can be adequately treated
 by men pledged to ancient traditions1  
employing antiquated methods1 and always
 tempted to have an eye to the  interest

 of their own creeds and churches4 ,but 
we can fully agree that  ethical        
principles underlie all the most        
important problems4 ,every  great       
religious reform has been stimulated by 
the conviction that the  one essential  
thing is a change of spirit1 not a mere 
modification of  the external law1 which
 has ceased to correspond to genuine    
beliefs and  powerful motives4 ,the     
commonest criticism1 indeed1 of all     
projectors of  new ,utopias is that they
 propose a change of human nature4 ,the 
criticism really suggests a sound       
criterion4 ,unless the change proposed  
be practicable1 the ,utopia will        
doubtless be impossible4 ,and unless    
some practicable change be proposed1 the
 ,utopia1 even were it embodied  in     
practice1 would be useless4 ,if the sole
 result of raising wages were  an       
increase in the consumption of gin1     
wages might as well stay at a  minimum4 
,but the tacit assumption that all      
changes of human nature are             

impracticable is simply a cynical and   
unproved assertion4 ,all of us  here    
hold1 ,i imagine1 that human nature has 
in a sense been changed4 ,we  hold that1
 with all its drawbacks1 progress is not
 an illusion2 that  men have become at  
least more tolerant and more humane2    
that ancient  brutalities have become   
impossible2 and that the suffering of   
the  weaker excites a keener sympathy4  
,to say that1 in that sense1 human      
nature must be changed1 is to say only  
that the one sound criterion of  all    
schemes for social improvement lies in  
their ethical tendency4 ,the  standard  
of life cannot be permanently raised    
unless you can raise the  standard of   
motive4 ,old-fashioned political        
theorists thought that a  simple change 
of the constitutional machinery would of
 itself remedy  all evils1 and failed to
 recognise that behind the institutions 
lie all  the instincts and capabilities 
of the men who are to work them4 ,a     
similar fallacy is prevalent1 ,i fancy1 

in regard to what we call social        
reforms4 ,some scheme for a new mode of 
distributing the products of  industry  
would1 it is often assumed1 remedy all  
social evils4 ,to my  thinking1 no such 
change would do more than touch the     
superficial  evils1 unless it had also  
some tendency to call out the higher and
  repress the lower impulses4 ,unless we
 can to some extent change human        
nature1 we shall be weaving ropes of    
sand1 or devising schemes for  perpetual
 motion1 for driving our machinery more 
effectively without  applying fresh     
energy4 ,we shall be falling into the   
old blunders2  approving ,jack ,cade's  
proposal--as recorded by                
,shakespeare--that the  three-hooped pot
 should have seven hoops2 or attempting 
to get rid of  poverty by converting the
 whole nation into paupers4 ,no one1    
perhaps1  will deny this in terms2 and  
to admit it frankly is to admit that    
every  scheme must be judged by its     
tendency to raise the manhood of the    

poor1 and to make every man1 rich and   
poor1 feel that he is  discharging a    
useful function in society4 ,old ,robert
 ,owen1 when he  began his reforms1     
rested his doctrine and his hopes of    
perfectibility  upon the scientific     
application of a scheme for the         
formation of  character4 ,his plans were
 crude enough1 and fell short of        
success4 ,but  he had seen the real     
conditions of success2 and when1 in     
after years1  he imagined that a new    
society might be made by simply         
collecting men  of any character in a   
crowd1 and inviting them to share alike1
 he fell  into the inevitable failure4  
,modern ,socialists might do well to    
remember his history4    ,now it is1 as 
,i understand1 primarily the aim of an  
,ethical ,society to  promote the       
rational discussion of these underlying 
ethical principles4  ,we wish to        
contribute to the clearest understanding
 we can of the right  ends to which     
human energy should be devoted1 and of  

the conditions  under which such        
devotion is most likely to be rewarded  
with success4  ,we desire to see the    
great controversy carried on in the     
nearest  possible approach to a         
scientific spirit4 ,that phrase implies1
 as ,i  have said1 that we must abandon 
much of the old guidance4 ,the lights by
  which our ancestors professed to      
direct their course are not for us      
supernatural signs1 shining in a        
transcendental region1 but at most the  
beacons which they had themselves       
erected1 and valuable as indications1   
though certainly not as infallible      
guides1 to the right path4 ,we must     
question everything1 and be prepared to 
modify or abandon whatever is           
untenable4 ,we must be scientific in    
spirit1 in so far as we must trust      
nothing but a thorough and systematic   
investigation of facts1 however  the    
facts may be interpreted4 ,undoubtedly1 
the course marked out is  long and      
arduous4 ,it is perfectly true1         

moreover1 as our antagonists  will      
hasten to observe1 that professedly     
scientific reasoners are  hardly better 
agreed than their opponents4 ,if they   
join upon some  negative conclusions1   
and upon some general principles of     
method1 they  certainly do not reach the
 same results4 ,they have at present no 
definite creed to lay down4 ,i need only
 refer1 for example1 to one very        
obvious illustration4 ,the men who were 
most conspicuous for their  attempt to  
solve social problems by scientific     
methods1 and most  confident that they  
had succeeded1 were1 probably1 those who
 founded  the so-called classical       
political economy1 and represented what 
is  now called the individualist point  
of view4 ,government1 they were apt  to 
think1 should do nothing but stand      
aside1 see fair-play1 and keep  our     
knives from each other's throats and our
 hands out of each other's  pockets4    
,much as their doctrines were denounced1
 this view is still  represented by the 

most popular philosopher of the day4    
,and undoubtedly  we shall do well to   
take to heart the obvious moral4 ,if we 
still  believe in the old-fashioned     
doctrines1 we must infer that to work   
out  a scientific doctrine is by no     
means to secure its acceptance4 ,if we  
reject them we must argue that the mere 
claim to be scientific may  inspire men 
with a premature self-confidence1 which 
tends only to make  their errors more   
systematic4 ,when1 however1 ,i look at  
the actual  course of controversy1 ,i am
 more impressed by another fact4        
,individualism is sometimes met by      
genuine argument4 ,more frequently1  ,i 
think1 it is met by simple appeal to    
sentiment4 ,this kind of thing1  we are 
told1 is exploded2 it is not up to date2
 it is as obsolete as  the plesiosaurus2
 and therefore1 without bothering       
ourselves about your  reasoning1 we     
shall simply neglect it4 ,talk as much  
as you please1 we  can get a majority on
 the other side4 ,we shall disregard    

your  arguments1 and1 therefore--it is a
 common piece of logic at the present   
day--your arguments must be all wrong4  
,i must be content here with  simply    
indicating my own view4 ,i think1 in    
fact1 that1 in this as in  other cases1 
the true answer to extreme theorists    
would be very  different4 ,i hold that  
we would begin by admitting the immense 
value of  the lesson taught by the old  
individualists1 if that be their right  
name4 ,if they were precipitate in      
laying down iron laws and  proclaiming  
inexorable necessity1 they were         
perfectly right in pointing  out that   
there are certain laws of human nature1 
and conditions of  social welfare1 which
 will not be altered by simply declaring
 them to  be unpleasant4 ,they did an   
inestimable service in emphatically     
protesting against the system of        
forcibly suppressing1 or trying to      
suppress1 deep-seated evils1 without an 
accurate preliminary diagnosis  of the  
causes4 ,and--not to go into remote     

questions--the  individualist creed had 
this merit1 which is related to our     
especial  aims4 ,the ethical doctrine   
which they preached may have had--,i    
think  that it had--many grave defects2 
but at least it involved a recognition  
of the truth which their opponents are  
too apt to shun or reject4 ,they1  at   
least1 asserted strenuously the cardinal
 doctrine of the importance  of         
individual responsibility4 ,they might  
draw some erroneous  inferences1 but    
they could not put too emphatically the 
doctrine that  men must not be taught to
 shift the blame of all their sufferings
 upon  some mysterious entity called    
society1 or expect improvement unless1  
among other virtues1 they will cultivate
 the virtue of strenuous1  unremitting1 
masculine self-help4    ,if this be at  
all true1 it may indicate what ,i take  
to be the aim of  our society1 or rather
 of us as members of an ethical society4
 ,we hold1  that is1 that the great     
problems of to-day have their root1 so  

to  speak1 in an ethical soil4 ,they    
will be decided one way or other by the 
view which we take of ethical questions4
 ,the questions1 for example1 of  what  
is meant by social justice1 what is the 
justification of private  property1 or  
the limits of personal liberty1 all lead
 us ultimately to  ethical foundations4 
,the same is1 of course1 true of many   
other  problems4 ,the demand for        
political rights of women is discussed1 
rightly no doubt1 upon grounds of       
justice1 and takes us to some knotty    
points4 ,does justice imply the equality
 of the sexes2 and1 if so1 in  what     
sense of equality8 ,and1 beyond this1 we
 come to the question1  ,what would be  
the bearing of our principles upon the  
institution of  marriage1 and upon the  
family bond8 ,no question can be more   
important1  or more vitally connected   
with ,ethics4 ,we1 at any rate1 can no  
longer  answer such problems by any     
traditional dogmatism4 ,they--and many  
other  questions which ,i need not      

specify--have been asked1 and have yet  
to be  answered4 ,they will probably not
 be answered by a simple yes or no1 nor 
by any isolated solution of a           
metaphysical puzzle4 ,undoubtedly1 a    
vast  mass of people will insist upon   
being consulted1 and will adopt methods 
which cannot be regarded as             
philosophical4 ,therefore1 it is a      
matter of  pressing importance that all 
people who can think at all should use  
their own minds1 and should do their    
best to widen and strengthen the        
influence of the ablest thinkers4 ,the  
chaotic condition of the average  mind  
is our reason for trying to strengthen  
the influence1 always too  feeble1 of   
the genuine thinkers4 ,much that passes 
itself off for  thought is simply old   
prejudice in a new dress4 ,tradition has
 always  this1 indeed1 to say for       
itself3 that it represents the product  
of much  unconscious reasoning from     
experience1 and that it is at least     
compatible with such progress as has    

been hitherto achieved4 ,progress  has  
in future to take place in the daylight1
 and under the stress of  keen          
discussion from every possible point of 
view4 ,it would be rash  indeed to      
assume that we can hope to see the      
substitution of purely  rational and    
scientific methods for the old haphazard
 and tentative  blundering into slightly
 better things4 ,it is possible enough  
that the  creed of the future may1 after
 all1 be a compromise1 admitting some   
elements of higher truth1 but attracting
 the popular mind by  concessions to    
superstition and ignorance4 ,we can     
hardly hope to get  rid of the rooted   
errors which have so astonishing a      
vitality4 ,but we  should desire1 and1  
so far as in us lies1 endeavour to      
secure the  presence of the largest     
possible element of genuine and reasoned
  conviction in the faith of our own and
 the rising generation4    ,i have not  
sought to say anything new4 ,i have only
 endeavoured to  define the general     

position which we1 as ,i imagine1 have  
agreed to  accept4 ,we hold in common   
that the old dogmas are no longer       
tenable1  though we are very far from   
being agreed as to what should replace  
them4 ,we have each1 ,i dare say1 our   
own theory2 we agree that our  theories1
 whatever they may be1 are in need of   
strict examination1 of  verification1 it
 may be1 but it may be also of          
modification or  rejection4 ,we hope    
that such societies as this may in the  
first place  serve as centres for       
encouraging and popularising the full   
and free  discussion of the great       
questions4 ,we wish that people who have
 reached  a certain stage of cultivation
 should be made aware of the course     
which  is being taken by those who may  
rightly claim to be in the van4 ,we     
often wish to know1 as well as we can1  
what is the direction of the  deeper    
currents of thought2 what genuine       
results1 for example1 have  been        
obtained by historical criticism1       

especially as applied to the  religious 
history of the world2 we want to know   
what are the real  points now at issue  
in the world of science2 the true       
bearing of the  theories of evolution1  
and so forth1 which are known by name   
far beyond  the circle in which their   
logical reasoning is really appreciated2
 we  want to know1 again1 what are the  
problems which really interest modern   
metaphysicians or psychologists2 in what
 directions there seems to be a  real   
promise of future achievement1 and in   
what directions it seems to  be proved  
by experience that any further expansion
 of intellectual  energy is certain to  
result only in the discovery of mares'  
nests4    ,matthew ,arnold would have   
expressed this by saying that we are    
required  to be made accessible to the  
influence of the ,zeitgeist4 ,there is a
  difficulty1 no doubt1 in discovering  
by what signs we may recognise the      
utterances of the ,zeitgeist2 and       
distinguish between loyalty to the  real

 intellectual leaders and a simple      
desire to be arrayed in the last  new   
fashion in philosophy4 ,there is no     
infallible sign2 and1 yet1 a  genuine   
desire to discover the true lines in    
which thought is  developing1 is not of 
the less importance4 ,arnold1 like      
others1 pointed  the moral by a contrast
 between ,england and ,germany4 ,the    
best that has  been done in ,england1 it
 is said1 has generally been done by    
amateurs  and outsiders4 ,they have1    
perhaps1 certain advantages1 as being   
less  afraid to strike into original    
paths1 and even the originality of      
ignorance is not always1 though it may  
be in nine cases out of ten1 a  name for
 fresh blundering4 ,but if sporadic     
,english writers have now and  then hit 
off valuable thoughts1 there can be no  
doubt that we have had  a heavy price to
 pay4 ,the comparative absence of any   
class1 devoted1  like ,german           
professors1 to a systematic and combined
 attempt to spread  the borders of      

knowledge and speculation1 has been an  
evil which is the  more felt in         
proportion as specialisation of science 
and familiarity  with previous          
achievements become more important4 ,it 
would be very easy  to give particular  
instances of our backwardness4 ,how     
different would  have been the course of
 ,english church history1 said somebody1
 if  ,newman had only known ,german6 ,he
 would have breathed a larger air1 and  
might have desisted--,i suppose that was
 the meaning--from the attempt  to put  
life into certain dead bones4 ,and with 
equal truth1 it may be  urged1 how much 
better work might have been done by ,j4 
,s4 ,mill if he  had really read ,kant6 
,he might not have been converted1 but  
he would  have been saved from          
maintaining in their crude form1        
doctrines which  undoubtedly require    
modification4 ,under his reign1 ,english
 thought was  constantly busied with    
false issues1 simply from ignorance of  
the most  effective criticism4 ,it is   

needless to point out how much time is  
wasted in the defence of positions that 
have long been turned by the  enemy from
 sheer want of acquaintance with the    
relevant evidence1 or  with the logic   
that has been revealed by the slow      
thrashing out of  thorough controversy4 
,it would be invidious perhaps to insist
 too much  upon another obvious result3 
the ease with which a man endowed with a
  gift of popular rhetoric1 and a       
facility for catching at the current    
phrases1 can set up as a teacher1       
however palpable to the initiated may   
be his ignorance4 ,scientific thought   
has perhaps as much to fear from  the   
false prophets who take its name as from
 the open enemies who try  to stifle its
 voice4 ,i would rather emphasise       
another point1 perhaps  less generally  
remarked4 ,the study has its idols as   
well as its  market-place4 ,certain     
weaknesses are developed in the         
academical  atmosphere as well as in the
 arenas of public discussion4 ,freeman  

used  to say that ,english historians   
had avoided certain errors into which   
,german writers of far greater knowledge
 and more thorough scholarship  had     
fallen1 simply because points were      
missed by a professor in a  ,german     
university which were plain to those    
who1 like many ,englishmen1  had to take
 a part in actual political work4 ,i    
think that this is not  without a       
meaning for us4 ,we have learnt1 very   
properly1 to respect  ,german research  
and industry2 and we are trying in      
various directions  to imitate their    
example4 ,perhaps it would be as well to
 keep an eye  upon some ,german         
weaknesses4 ,a philosophy made for      
professors is apt to  be a philosophy   
for pedants4 ,a professor is bound to be
 omniscient2 he  has to have an answer  
to everything2 he is tempted to         
construct systems  which will pass      
muster in the lecture-room1 and to      
despise the rest of  their applicability
 to daily life4 ,i confess myself to be 

old-fashioned  enough to share some of  
the old ,english prejudices against     
those  gigantic structures which have   
been thrown out by imposing             
philosophers1 who evolved complete      
systems of metaphysics and logic and    
religion and politics and sthetics out  
of their own consciousness4 ,we  have   
multiplied professors of late1 and      
professors are bound to write  books1   
and to magnify the value of their own   
studies4 ,they must make a  show of     
possessing an encyclopdic theory which  
will explain everything  and take into  
account all previous theories4          
,sometimes1 perhaps1 they  will lose    
themselves in endless subtleties and    
logomachies and  construct cobwebs of   
the brain1 predestined to the           
rubbish-heap of  extinct philosophies4  
,it is enough1 however1 to urge that a  
mere  student may be the better for     
keeping in mind the necessity of keeping
  in mind real immediate human          
interests2 as the sentimentalist has to 

be  reminded of the importance of       
strictly logical considerations4 ,and ,i
  think too that a very brief study of  
the most famous systems of old  days    
will convince us that philosophers      
should be content with a more  modest   
attitude than they have sometimes       
adopted2 give up the  pretensions to    
framing off-hand theories of things in  
general1 and be  content to puzzle out a
 few imperfect truths which may slowly  
work  their way into the general        
structure of thought4 ,i wish to speak  
humbly  as befits one who cannot claim  
any particular authority for his        
opinion4 ,but1 in all humility1 ,i      
suggest that if we can persuade men of  
reputation in the regions where subtle  
thought and accurate research  are duly 
valued1 we shall be doing good1 not only
 to ourselves1 but1 if  ,i may whisper  
it1 to them4 ,we value their attainments
 so highly that we  desire their        
influence to spread beyond the narrow   
precinct of  university lecture-rooms2  

and their thoughts be1 at the same time1
  stimulated and vitalised by bringing  
them into closer contact with the       
problems which are daily forced upon us 
in the business of daily life4  ,a      
divorce between the men of thought and  
the men of action is really  bad for    
both4 ,whatever tends to break up the   
intellectual stupor of  large classes1  
to rouse their minds1 to increase their 
knowledge of the  genuine work that is  
being done1 to provide them even with   
more of such  recreations as refine and 
invigorate1 must have our sympathy1 and 
will  be useful both to those who confer
 and to those who receive  instruction4 
,so1 after all1 a philosopher can learn 
few things of more  importance than the 
art of translating his doctrines into   
language  intelligible and really       
instructive to the outside world4 ,there
 was a  period when real thinkers1 as   
,locke and ,berkeley and ,butler and    
,hume1  tried to express themselves as  
pithily and pointedly as possible4 ,they

  were1 say some of their critics1 very 
shallow3 they were over-anxious  to suit
 the taste of wits and the town3 and in 
too much fear of the  charge of         
pedantry4 ,well1 if some of our         
profounder thinkers would try  for once 
to pack all that they really have to say
 as closely as they  can1 instead of    
trying to play every conceivable change 
upon every  thought that occurs to them1
 ,i fancy that they would be surprised  
both  at the narrowness of the space    
which they would occupy and the         
comparative greatness of the effect they
 would produce4    ,an ethical society  
should aim at supplying a meeting-place 
between the  expert and specialist on   
one side1 and1 on the other1 with the   
men who  have to apply ideas to the     
complex concretes of political and      
social  activity4 ,how far we can       
succeed in furthering that aim ,i need  
not  attempt to say4 ,but ,i will       
conclude by reverting to some thoughts  
at  which ,i hinted at starting4 ,you   

may think that ,i have hardly spoken in 
a very sanguine or optimistic tone4 ,i  
have certainly admitted the  existence  
of enormous difficulties and the        
probabilities of very  imperfect        
success4 ,i cannot think that the       
promised land of which we  are taking a 
,pisgah sight is so near or the view so 
satisfactory as  might be wished4 ,a    
mirage like that which attended our     
predecessors may  still be exercising   
illusions for us2 and ,i anticipate less
 an  immediate fruition1 than a         
beginning of another long cycle of      
wanderings through a desert1 let us hope
 rather more fertile than that  which we
 have passed4 ,if this be something of a
 confession you may  easily explain it  
by personal considerations4 ,in an old  
controversy  which ,i was reading the   
other day1 one of the disputants        
observed that  his adversary held that  
the world was going from bad to worse4  
,i do  not wonder at the opinion1 he    
remarks2 for ,i am every day more       

tempted to embrace it myself1 since     
every day ,i am leaving youth  further  
behind4 ,i am old enough to feel the    
force of that remark4  ,without         
admitting senility1 ,i have lived long  
enough1 that is1 to know  well that for 
me the brighter happiness is a thing of 
the past2 that ,i  have to look back    
even to realise what it means2 and to   
feel that a  sadder colouring is        
conferred upon the internal world by the
 eye which  hath kept watch o'er man's  
mortality4 ,i have watched the brilliant
  promise of many contemporaries        
eclipsed by premature death2 and have   
too often had to apply ,newton's remark1
 ,if that man had lived1 we  might have 
known something4 ,lights which once     
cheered me have gone  out1 and are going
 out all too rapidly2 and1 to say       
nothing of  individuals1 ,i have also   
lived long enough to watch the decay of 
once  flourishing beliefs4 ,i can       
remember1 only too vividly1 the         
confident  hope with which many young   

men1 whom ,i regarded as the destined   
leaders  of progress1 affirmed that the 
doctrines which they advocated were     
going forth conquering and to conquer2  
and though ,i may still think  that     
those doctrines had a permanent value1  
and were far from deserving  the        
reproaches now often levelled at them1  
,i must admit that we greatly           
exaggerated our omniscience4 ,i am often
 tempted1 ,i confess1 to draw the       
rather melancholy moral that some of my 
younger friends may be destined  to     
disillusionment1 and may be driven some 
thirty years hence to admit  that their 
present confidence was a little in      
excess4    ,i admit all this3 but ,i do 
not admit that my view could sanction   
despondency4 ,i can see perhaps ground  
for foreboding which ,i should  once    
have rejected4 ,i can realise more      
distinctly1 not only the amount  of     
misery in the world1 but the amount of  
misdirected energy1 the  dulness of the 
average intellect1 and the vast         

deadweight of  superstition and dread of
 the light with which all improvement   
must  have to reckon4 ,and yet ,i also  
feel that1 if a complacent optimism be  
impossible1 the world was never so full 
of interest4 ,when we complain  of the  
stress and strain and over-excitement of
 modern society we  indicate1 ,i think1 
a real evil2 but we also tacitly admit  
that no one  has any excuse for being   
dull4 ,in every direction there is      
abundant  opportunity for brave and     
thoughtful men to find the fullest      
occupation  for whatever energy they may
 possess4 ,there is work to be found    
everywhere in this sense1 and none but  
the most torpid can find an  excuse for 
joining the spiritually unemployed4 ,the
 fields1 surely1 are  white for the     
harvest1 though there are weeds enough  
to be extirpated1  and hard enough      
furrows to be ploughed4 ,we know what   
has been done in  the field of physical 
science4 ,it has made the world         
infinite4 ,the days  of the old pagan1  

suckled in some creed outworn1 are      
regretted in  ,wordsworth's sonnet2 for 
the old pagan held to the poetical view 
that a  star was the chariot of a deity4
 ,the poor deity1 however1 had1 in fact1
  a duty as monotonous as that of a     
driver in the ,underground ,railway4 ,to
  us a star is a signal of a new world2 
it suggests universe beyond  universe2  
sinking into the infinite abysses of    
space2 we see worlds  forming or        
decaying and raising at every moment    
problems of a strange  fascination4 ,the
 prosaic truth is really more poetical  
than the old  figment of the childish   
imagination4 ,the first great discovery 
of the  real nature of the stars did1 in
 fact1 logically or not1 break up more  
effectually than perhaps any other      
cause1 the old narrow and stifling      
conception of the universe represented  
by ,dante's superlative power2  and made
 incredible the systems based on the    
conception that man can be  the centre  
of all things and the universe created  

for the sake of this  place4 ,it is     
enough to point to the similar change   
due to modern  theories of evolution4   
,the impassable barriers of thought are 
broken  down4 ,instead of the verbal    
explanation1 which made every plant and 
animal an ultimate and inexplicable     
fact1 we now see in each a movement  in 
an indefinite series of complex         
processes1 stretching back further  than
 the eye can reach into the indefinite  
past4 ,if we are sometimes  stunned by  
the sense of inconceivable vastness1 we 
feel1 at least1 that  no intellectual   
conqueror need ever be affected by the  
old fear4 ,for  him there will always be
 fresh regions to conquer4 ,every       
discovery  suggests new problems2 and   
though knowledge may be simplified and  
codified1 it will always supply a base  
for fresh explanations of the           
indefinite regions beyond4 ,can that    
which is true of the physical  sciences 
be applied in any degree to the         
so-called moral sciences8 ,to  ,bentham1

 ,i believe1 is ascribed the wish that  
he could fall asleep and  be waked at   
the end of successive centuries1 to take
 note of the  victories achieved in the 
intervals by his utilitarianism4        
,tennyson1 in  one of his youthful      
poems1 played with the same thought4 ,it
 would be  pleasant1 as the story of the
 sleeping beauty suggested1 to rise     
every  hundred years to mark the        
progress made in science and politics2  
and to  see the ,titanic forces that    
would come to the birth in divers climes
  and seasons2 for we1 he says--        
,for we are ,ancients of the earth1     
,and in the morning of the times4       
,tennyson1 if this expressed his serious
 belief1 seems to have lost his         
illusions2 and it is probable enough    
that ,bentham's would have had some     
unpleasant surprises could his wish have
 been granted4 ,it is more than  a      
century since his doctrine was first    
revealed1 and yet the world has  not    
become converted2 and some people doubt 

whether it ever will be4  ,if1 indeed1  
,bentham's speculations had been        
adopted2 if we had all  become convinced
 that morality means aiming at the      
greatest happiness  of the greatest     
number2 if we were agreed as to what is 
happiness1 and  what is the best way of 
promoting it1--there would still have   
been a  vast step to take1 no less than 
to persuade people to desire to follow  
the lines of conduct which tend to      
minimise unhappiness4 ,the mere         
intellectual conviction that this or    
that will be useful is quite a          
different thing from the desire4 ,you no
 more teach men to be moral by  giving  
them a sound ethical theory1 than you   
teach them to be good  shots by         
explaining the theory of projectiles4 ,a
 religion implies a  philosophy1 but a  
philosophy is not by itself a religion4 
,the demand  that it should be is1 ,i   
hold1 founded upon a wrong view as to   
the  relation between the abstract      
theory and the art of conduct4 ,to      

convert  the world you have not merely  
to prove your theories1 but to stimulate
  the imagination1 to discipline the    
passions1 to provide modes of  utterance
 for the emotions and symbols which may 
represent the  fundamental              
beliefs--briefly1 to do what is done by 
the founders of the  great religions4   
,to transmute speculation into action is
 a problem of  tremendous difficulty1   
and ,i only glance in the briefest way  
at its  nature4 ,we1 ,i take it1 as     
members of ,ethical ,societies1 have no 
claim  to be1 even in the humblest way1 
missionaries of a new religion3 but  are
 simply interested in doing what we can 
to discuss in a profitable  way the     
truths which it ought to embody or      
reflect4 ,but that is itself  a work of 
no trifling importance2 and we may      
imagine that a ,bentham1  refreshed by  
his century's slumber1 and having       
dropped some of his  little personal    
vanities1 would on the whole be         
satisfied with what he  saw4 ,if ,bacon 

could again come to life1 he too would  
find that the  methods which he         
contemplated and the doctrines which he 
preached were  narrow and refutive2 yet 
his prophecies of scientific growth have
 been  more than realised by his        
successors1 modifying1 in some ways1    
rejecting his principles4 ,and so       
,bentham might hold to-day that1        
although his sacred formula was not so  
exhaustive or precise as he  fancied1   
yet the conscious and deliberate pursuit
 of the happiness of  mankind had taken 
a much more important place in the      
aspirations of the  time4 ,he would see 
that the vast changes which have taken  
place in  society1 vast beyond all      
previous conception1 were bringing up   
ever new  problems1 requiring more      
elaborate methods1 and more systematic  
reasoning4 ,he would observe that many  
of the abuses which he denounced  have  
disappeared1 and that though progress   
does not take place along  the precise  
lines which he laid down1 there is both 

a clearer  recognition of the great ends
 of conduct1 and a general advance in   
the  direction which he desired4 ,that  
this can be carried on by promoting a   
free and full discussion of first       
principles2 that the great social  evils
 which still exist can be diminished1   
and the creed of the future1  however   
dim its outlines may be to our          
perception1 may be purified as  much as 
possible from ancient prejudice and     
superstition1 is our faith2  and however
 little we can do to help in carrying   
out that process1 we  desire to do that 
little4          ,,science ,,and        
,,politics4#b      ,it is with great    
pleasure that ,i address you as         
president of this  ,society4 ,your main 
purpose1 as ,i understand1 is to promote
 the serious  study of political and    
social problems in a spirit purged from 
the  prejudice and narrowness of mere   
party conflict4 ,you desire1 that is1   
to promote a scientific investigation of
 some of the most important  topics to  

which the human mind can devote itself4 
,there is no purpose  of which ,i       
approve more cordially3 yet the very    
statement suggests a  doubt4 ,to speak  
of science and politics together is     
almost to suggest  irony4 ,and if       
politics be taken in the ordinary sense2
 if we think of  the discussions by     
which the immediate fate of measures and
 of  ministries is decided1 ,i should be
 inclined to think that they belong  to 
a sphere of thought to which scientific 
thought is hardly  applicable1 and in   
which ,i should be personally an        
unwarrantable  intruder4 ,my friends    
have sometimes accused me1 indeed1 of   
indifference  to politics4 ,i confess   
that ,i have never been able to follow  
the  details of party warfare with the  
interest which they excite in some      
minds3 and reasons1 needless to         
indicate1 have caused me to stray       
further and further away from           
intercourse with the society in which   
such details excite a predominant--,i do

 not mean to insinuate an               
excessive--interest4 ,i feel that if ,i 
were to suggest any arguments  bearing  
directly upon home rule or              
disestablishment1 ,i should at once     
come under that damnatory epithet       
academical1 which so neatly cuts  the   
ground from under the feet of the       
political amateur4 ,moreover1 ,i        
recognise a good deal of justice in the 
implied criticism4 ,an active           
politician who wishes to impress his    
doctrines upon his countrymen1  should  
have a kind of knowledge to which ,i can
 make no pretension4 ,i  share the      
ordinary feelings of awful reverence    
with which the human  bookworm looks up 
to the man of business4 ,he has         
faculties which in me  are rudimentary1 
but which ,i can appreciate by their    
contrast to my own  feebleness4 ,the    
knowledge of the world ascribed to      
lawyers1 to  politicians1 financiers1   
and such persons1 like the knowledge of 
the  human heart so often ascribed to   

dramatists and novelists1 represents1   
,i take it1 a very real kind of         
knowledge2 but it is rather an instinct 
than a set of definite principles2 a    
power of somehow estimating the         
tendencies and motives of their         
fellow-creatures in a mass by rule of   
thumb1 rather than by any distinctly    
assignable logical process2 only  to be 
gained by long experience and shrewd    
observation of men and  cities4 ,such a 
faculty1 as it reaches sound results    
without employing  explicit definitions 
and syllogisms and inductive processes1 
sometimes  inclines its possessors to   
look down too contemptuously upon the   
closet  student4          #b ,address to
 the ,social and ,political ,education  
,league1 #bith        ,march1 #ahib4    
,while1 however1 ,i frankly confess my  
hopeless incapacity for taking any  part
 in the process by which party platforms
 are constructed1 ,i should  be ashamed 
to admit that ,i was not very keenly    
interested in political  discussions    

which seem to me to touch vitally       
important matters4 ,and  fully          
recognising the vast superiority of the 
practical man in his own  world1 ,i also
 hold that he should not treat me and my
 like as if we1  according to the famous
 comparison1 were black beetles1 and he 
at the  opposite pole of the universe4  
,there exists1 in books at least1 such a
  thing as political theory1 apart from 
that claiming to underlie the  immediate
 special applications4 ,your practical  
man is given to  appealing to such      
theories now and then2 though ,i confess
 that he too  often leaves the          
impression of having taken them up on   
the spur of the  moment to round a      
peroration and to give dignity to a     
popular cry2 and  that1 in his lips1    
they are apt to sound so crude and      
artificial that  one can only wonder at 
his condescending to notice them4 ,he   
ridicules  them as the poorest of       
platitudes whenever they are used by an 
antagonist1 and one can only hope that  

his occasional homage implies  that he  
too has a certain belief that there     
ought to be1 and perhaps may  somewhere 
be1 a sound theory1 though he has not   
paid it much attention4  ,well1 we1 ,i  
take it1 differ from him simply in this 
respect1 that we  believe more decidedly
 that such theory has at least a        
potential  existence2 and that if       
hitherto it is a very uncertain and     
ambiguous  guide1 the mere attempt to   
work it out seriously may do something  
to  strengthen and deepen our practical 
political convictions4 ,a man of real   
ability1 who is actively engaged in     
politics without being submerged by     
merely political intrigues1 can hardly  
fail to wish at least to  institute some
 kind of research into the principles   
which guide his  practice4 ,to such a   
desire we may attribute some very       
stimulating books1  such1 for example1  
as ,bagehot's ,physics and ,politics or 
,mr4 ,bryce's  philosophical study of   
the ,united ,states4 ,what ,i propose to

 do is to  suggest a few considerations 
as to the real value and proper         
direction  of these arguments1 which    
lie1 as it were1 on the borderland      
between the  immediate platform and the 
abstract theory4    ,philosophers have  
given us the name ,sociology--a         
barbarous name1 say  some--for the      
science which deals with the subject    
matter of our  inquiries4 ,is it more   
than a name for a science which may or  
may not  some day come into existence8  
,what is science8 ,it is simply         
organised  knowledge2 that part of our  
knowledge which is definite1 established
  beyond reasonable doubt1 and which    
achieves its task by formulating  what  
are called scientific laws4 ,laws in    
this sense are general  formul1 which1  
when the necessary data are supplied1   
will enable us to  extend our knowledge 
beyond the immediate facts of           
perception4 ,given a  planet1 moving at 
a given speed in a given direction1 and 
controlled by  given attractive forces1 

we can determine its place at a future  
moment4  ,or given a vegetable organism 
in a given environment1 we can predict  
within certain limits the way in which  
it will grow1 although the laws  are too
 obscure and too vague to enable us to  
speak of it with any  approach to the   
precision of astronomy4 ,and we should  
have reached a  similar stage in        
sociology if from a given social or     
political  constitution adopted by a    
given population1 we could prophesy what
  would be the results4 ,i need not say 
that any approximation to such          
achievements is almost indefinitely     
distant4 ,personal claims to such       
powers of prediction rather tend to     
bring discredit upon the embryo         
science4 ,coleridge gives in the        
,biographia ,literaria a quaint         
statement of his own method4 ,on every  
great occurrence1 he says1 he  tried to 
discover in past history the event that 
most nearly resembled  it4 ,he examined 
the original authorities4 ,then fairly  

subtracting the  points of difference   
from the points of likeness1 as the     
balance  favoured the former or the     
latter1 he conjectured that the result  
would  be the same1 or different4 ,so1  
for example1 he was able to prophesy the
  end of the ,spanish rising against    
,napoleon from the event of the war     
between ,philip ,,ii4 and the ,dutch    
provinces4 ,that is1 he cried1 ,heads6  
and on this occasion the coin did not   
come down tails4 ,but ,i need  hardly   
point out how impossible is the process 
of political arithmetic4  ,what is meant
 by adding or subtracting in this       
connection8 ,such a rule  of three would
 certainly puzzle me1 and1 ,i fancy1    
most other observers4  ,we may say that 
the insurrection of a patriotic people1 
when they are  helped from without1 and 
their oppressors have to operate from a 
distant base and to fight all ,europe at
 the same time1 will often  succeed2 and
 we may often be right2 but we should   
not give ourselves  the airs of prophets

 on that account4 ,there are many       
superficial  analogies of the same      
character4 ,my predecessor1 ,professor  
,dicey1  pointed out some of them1 to   
confirm his rather depressing theory    
that  history is nothing but an old     
almanac4 ,let me take a common one1     
which1  ,i think1 may illustrate our    
problem4 ,there is a certain analogy    
between  the cases of ,csar1 ,cromwell1 
and ,napoleon4 ,in each case we have a  
military dictatorship as the final      
outcome of a civil war4 ,some people    
imagined that this analogy would apply  
to the ,united ,states1 and that        
,washington or ,grant would be what was 
called the man on horseback4 ,the       
reasoning really involved was1 in fact1 
a very simple one4 ,the  destruction of 
an old system of government makes some  
form of  dictatorship the only          
alternative to chaos4 ,it therefore     
gives a chance  to the one indisputable 
holder of power in its most unmistakable
 shape1  namely1 to the general of a    

disciplined army4 ,a soldier accordingly
  assumed power in each of the three    
first cases1 although the  differences  
between the societies ruled by the      
,roman1 the ,english and  the ,french   
dictators are so vast that further      
comparison soon becomes  idle4 ,neither 
,washington nor ,grant had the least    
chance of making  themselves dictators  
had they wished1 because the civil wars 
had left  governments perfectly         
uninjured and capable of discharging all
 their  functions1 and had not produced 
a regular army with interests of its    
own4 ,in this and other cases1 ,i should
 say that such an analogy may be  to    
some extent instructive1 but ,i should  
certainly deny that there was  anything 
like a scientific induction4 ,we1       
happily1 can reason to some  extent upon
 political matters by the help of simple
 common sense before  it has undergone  
that process of organisation1 of        
reduction to precise  measurable        
statements1 which entitles it to be     

called a scientific  procedure4 ,the    
resemblance of ,washington to ,cromwell 
was of the  external and superficial    
order4 ,it may be compared to those     
analogies  which exist between members  
of different natural orders without     
implying any deeper resemblance4 ,a     
whale1 we know1 is like a fish in so    
far as he swims about in the sea1 and he
 has whatever fishlike  qualities are   
implied in the ability to swim4 ,he will
 die on land1  though not from the same 
causes4 ,but1 physiologically1 he       
belongs to a  different race1 and we    
should make blunders if we argued from  
the  external likeness to a closer      
resemblance4 ,or1 to drop what may be   
too  fanciful a comparison1 it may be   
observed that all assemblies of human   
beings may be contrasted in respect of  
being numerous or select1 and  have     
certain properties in consequence4 ,we  
may therefore make some true  and       
general propositions about the contrasts
 between the action of  small and large 

consultative bodies which will apply to 
many widely  different cases4 ,a good   
many1 and1 ,i think1 some really        
valuable  observations of this kind have
 been made1 and form the substance of   
many generalisations laid down as to the
 relative advantages of  democracy and  
aristocracy4 ,now ,i should be disposed 
to say that such  remarks belong rather 
to the morphology than the physiology of
 the  social organism4 ,they indicate   
external resemblances between bodies of 
which the intimate constitution and the 
whole mode of growth and  conditions of 
vitality1 may be entirely different4    
,such analogies1  then1 though not      
without their value1 are far from being 
properly  scientific4    ,what remains8 
,there is1 shall we say1 no science of  
sociology--merely a  heap of vague1     
empirical observations1 too flimsy to be
 useful in  strict logical inference8 ,i
 should1 ,i confess1 be apt to say so   
myself4  ,then1 you may proceed1 is it  
not idle to attempt to introduce a      

scientific method8 ,and to that ,i      
should emphatically reply1 ,no6 it is   
of the highest importance4 ,the         
question1 then1 will follow1 how ,i can 
maintain these two positions at once4   
,and to that ,i make1 in the first      
place1 this general answer3 ,sociology  
is still of necessity a very  vague body
 of approximate truths4 ,we have not the
 data necessary for  obtaining anything 
like precise laws4 ,a mathematician can 
tell you  precisely what he means when  
he speaks of bodies moving under the    
influence of an attraction which varies 
inversely as the square of the          
distance4 ,but what are the attractive  
forces which hold together the  body    
politic8 ,they are a number of human    
passions1 which even the  acutest       
psychologists are as yet quite unable to
 analyse or to  classify3 they act      
according to laws of which we have      
hardly the  vaguest inkling2 and1 even  
if we possessed any definite laws1 the  
facts  to which they have to be applied 

are so amazingly complex as to defy  any
 attempt at assigning results4 ,there   
is1 so far as ,i can see1 no  ground for
 supposing that there is or ever can be 
a body of precise  truths at all capable
 of comparison with the exact sciences4 
,but this  obvious truth1 though it     
implies very narrow limits to our hopes 
of  scientific results1 does not force  
us to renounce the application of       
scientific method4 ,the difficulty      
applies in some degree even to          
physiology as compared with physics1 as 
the vital phenomena are  incomparably   
more complex than those with which we   
have to deal in the  simpler sciences2  
and yet nobody doubts that a scientific 
physiology is  a possibility1 and1 to   
some extent1 a reality4 ,now1 in        
sociology1  however imperfect it may be1
 we may still apply the same methods    
which  have been so fruitful in other   
departments of thought4 ,we may         
undertake  it in the scientific spirit  
which depends upon patient appeal to    

observation1 and be guided by the       
constant recollection that we are       
dealing with an organism1 the various   
relations of whose constituent  parts   
are determined by certain laws to which 
we may1 perhaps1 make  some             
approximation4 ,we may do so1 although  
their mutual actions and  reactions are 
so complex and subtle that we can never 
hope to  disentangle them with any      
approach to completeness4 ,and one test 
of the  legitimacy of our methods will  
be1 that although we do not hope to     
reach any precise and definitely        
assignable law1 we yet reach1 or aim  at
 reaching1 results which1 while wanting 
in precision1 want precision  alone to  
be capable of incorporation in an ideal 
science such as might  actually exist   
for a supernatural observer of          
incomparably superior  powers4 ,a man   
who knows1 though he knows nothing more1
 that the moon is  kept in its orbit by 
forces similar to or identical with     
those which  cause the fall of an apple1

 knows something which only requires    
more  definite treatment to be made into
 a genuine theory of gravitation4 ,if1  
on the contrary1 he merely pays himself 
with words1 with vague guesses  about   
occult properties1 or a supposed angel  
who directs the moon's  course1 he is   
still in the unscientific stage4 ,his   
theory is not  science still in the     
vague1 but something which stops the way
 to  science4 ,now1 if we can never hope
 to get further than the step which  in 
the problem of gravitation represents   
the first step towards  science1 yet    
that step may be a highly important one4
 ,it represents a  diversion of the     
current of thought from such channels as
 end in mere  shifting sands of         
speculation1 into the channel which     
leads towards  some definite conclusion1
 verifiable by experience1 and leading  
to  conclusions1 not very precise1 but  
yet often pointing to important         
practical results4 ,it may1 perhaps1 be 
said that1 as the change which ,i  am   

supposing represents only a change of   
method and spirit1 it can  achieve no   
great results in actual assignable      
truth4 ,well6 a change of  method and   
spirit is1 in my opinion1 of            
considerable importance1 and  very vague
 results would still imply an           
improvement in the chaos of  what now   
passes for political philosophy4 ,i will
 try to indicate very  briefly the kind 
of improvement of which we need not     
despair4    ,first of all1 ,i conceive  
that1 as ,i have indicated1 a really    
scientific  habit of thought would      
dispel many hopeless logomachies4 ,when 
,burke1  incomparably the greatest of   
our philosophical politicians1 was      
arguing  against the ,american policy of
 the ,government1 he expressed his      
hatred  of metaphysics--the ,serbonian  
bog1 as he called it1 in which whole    
armies had been lost4 ,the point at     
which he aimed was the fruitless        
discussion of abstract rights1 which    
prevented people from applying  their   

minds to the actual facts1 and from     
seeing that metaphysical  entities of   
that kind were utterly worthless when   
they ceased to  correspond to the wants 
and aspirations of the peoples          
concerned4 ,he  could not1 as he said1  
draw up an indictment against a nation1 
because  he could not see how such      
troubles as had arisen between ,england 
and  the ,colonies were to be decided by
 technical distinctions such as  passed 
current at nisi prius4 ,i am afraid that
 the mode of reasoning  condemned by    
,burke has not yet gone out of fashion4 
,i do not wish to  draw down upon myself
 the wrath of metaphysicians4 ,i am     
perfectly  willing that they should go  
on amusing themselves by attempting to  
deduce the first principles of morality 
from abstract considerations of  logical
 affirmation and denial4 ,but ,i will   
say this1 that1 in any case1  and       
whatever the ultimate meaning of right  
and wrong1 all political and  social    
questions must be discussed with a      

continual reference to  experience1 to  
the contents as well as to the form of  
their metaphysical  concepts4 ,it is1 to
 my mind1 quite as idle to attempt to   
determine the  value1 say1 of a         
political theory by reasoning           
independent of the  character and       
circumstances of the nation and its     
constituent members1  as to solve a     
medical question by abstract formul1    
instead of by  careful1 prolonged1 and  
searching investigation into the        
constitution of  the human body4 ,i     
think that this requires to be asserted 
so long as  popular orators continue to 
declaim1 for example1 about the rights  
of  man1 or the doctrines of political  
equality4 ,i by no means deny1 or       
rather ,i should on due occasion        
emphatically assert1 that the demands   
covered by such formul are perfectly    
right1 and that they rest upon a  base  
of justice4 ,but ,i am forced to think  
that1 as they are generally  stated1    
they can lead to nothing but logomachy4 

,when a man lays down  some such        
sweeping principle1 his real object is  
to save himself the  trouble of         
thinking4 ,so long as the first         
principles from which he  starts are    
equally applicable1--and it is of the   
very nature of these  principles that   
they should be equally applicable to men
 in all times  and ages1 to ,englishmen 
and ,americans1 ,hindoos and ,chinese1  
,negroes and  ,australians1--they are   
worthless for any particular case1      
although1 of  course1 they may be       
accidentally true in particular cases4  
,in short1  leaving to the              
metaphysicians--that is1 postponing till
 the ,greek  ,kalends--any decision as  
to the ultimate principles1 ,i say that 
every  political theory should be       
prepared to justify itself by an        
accurate  observation of the history and
 all the various characteristics of the 
social organisation to which it is to be
 applied4    ,this points to the        
contrast to which ,i have referred3 the 

contrast  between the keen vigorous good
 sense upon immediate questions of the  
day1 to which ,i often listen with the  
unfeigned admiration due to the  shrewd 
man of business1 and the paltry little  
outworn platitudes which  he introduces 
when he wants to tag his arguments with 
sounding  principles4 ,i think1 to take 
an example out of harm's way1 that an   
excellent instance is found in the      
famous ,american treatise1 the          
,federalist4 ,it deserves all the credit
 it has won so long as the  authors are 
discussing the right way to form a      
constitution which may  satisfy the     
wants and appease the prejudices then   
actually existing4 ,in  spite of such   
miscalculations as beset all forecasts  
of the future1  they show admirable good
 sense and clear appreciation4 ,but when
 they  think it necessary to appeal to  
,montesquieu1 to tag their arguments    
from common sense with little ornamental
 formul learnt from  philosophical      
writings1 they show a very amiable      

simplicity2 but they  also seem to me to
 sink at once to the level of a clever  
prize essay in  a university            
competition4 ,the mischief may be slight
 when we are merely  considering        
literary effect4 ,but it points to a    
graver evil4 ,in  political discussions1
 the half-trained mind has strong       
convictions  about some particular case1
 and then finds it easiest to justify   
its  conviction by some sweeping general
 principle4 ,it really starts1  speaking
 in terms of logic1 by assuming the     
truth of its minor and  takes for       
granted that any major which will cover 
the minor is  therefore established4    
,nothing saves so much trouble in       
thinking as the  acceptance of a good   
sounding generality or a self-evident   
truth4 ,where  your poor scientific     
worker plods along1 testing the truth of
 his  argument at every point1 making   
qualifications and reservations1 and    
admitting that every general principle  
may require to be modified in  concrete 

cases1 you can thus both jump to your   
conclusion and assume  the airs of a    
philosopher4 ,it is1 ,i fancy1 for this 
reason that people  have such a tendency
 to lay down absolute rules about really
 difficult  points4 ,it is so much      
easier to say at once that all drinking 
ought to  be suppressed1 than to        
consider how1 in actual circumstances1  
sobriety  can be judiciously encouraged2
 and by assuming a good self-evident law
  and denouncing your opponents as      
immoral worshippers of expediency1 you  
place yourself in an enviable position  
of moral dignity and  inaccessibility4  
,no argument can touch you4 ,these      
abstract rules1 too1  have the          
convenience of being strangely          
ambiguous4 ,i have been almost          
pathetically affected when ,i have      
observed how some thoroughly            
commonplace person plumes himself on    
preserving his consistency because  he  
sticks resolutely to his party dogmas1  
even when their whole meaning  has      

evaporated4 ,some ,english radicals     
boasted of consistency because  they    
refused to be convinced by experience   
that republicans under a  military      
dictator could become tyrannous and     
oppressive4 ,at the present  day1 ,i see
 many worthy gentlemen1 who from being  
thorough-going  individualists1 have    
come to swallow unconsciously the first 
principles  of socialism without the    
least perception that they have changed1
  simply because a new meaning has been 
gradually insinuated into the  sacred   
formul4 ,scientific habits of thought1  
,i venture to suggest1  would tend to   
free a man from the dominion of these   
abstract phrases1  which sometimes make 
men push absolute dogmas to extravagant 
results1  and sometimes blind them to   
the complete transformation which has   
taken  place in their true meaning4 ,the
 great test of statesmanship1 it is     
said1 is the knowledge how and when to  
make a compromise1 and when to  hold    
fast to a principle4 ,the tendency of   

the thoughtless is to  denounce all     
compromise as wicked1 and to stick to a 
form of words  without bothering about  
the real meaning4 ,belief in fads--,i   
cannot  avoid the bit of slang--and     
singular malleability of real           
convictions  are sometimes generated    
just by want of serious thought2 and1 at
 any  rate1 both phenomena are very     
common at present4    ,this suggests    
another aspect of reasoning in a        
scientific spirit1  namely1 the         
importance which it attaches to a right 
comprehension of  the practicable4 ,the 
scientific view is sometimes described  
as  fatalistic4 ,a genuine scientific   
theory implies a true estimate of the   
great forces which mould institutions1  
and therefore a true  apprehension of   
the limits within which they can be     
modified by any  proposed change4 ,we   
all remember ,sydney ,smith's famous    
illustration1 in  regard to the         
opposition to the ,reform ,bill1 of     
,mrs4 ,partington's  attempt to stop the

 ,atlantic with her mop4 ,such an appeal
 is sometimes  described as immoral4    
,many politicians1 no doubt1 find in it 
an excuse  for immoral conduct4 ,they   
assume that such and such a measure is  
inevitable1 and therefore they think    
themselves justified for  advocating it1
 even though they hold it to be wrong4  
,indeed1 ,i observe  that many excellent
 journalists are apparently unable to   
perceive any  distinction between the   
assertion that a measure will be passed1
 and  that it ought to be passed4       
,undoubtedly1 if ,i think a measure     
unjust1 ,i  ought to say that it is     
unjust1 even if ,i am sure that it will 
nevertheless be carried1 and1 in some   
cases1 even though ,i may be a  martyr  
to my opposition4 ,if it is inevitable1 
it can be carried without  my help1 and 
my protest may at least sow a seed for  
future reaction4  ,but this is no answer
 to the argument of ,sydney ,smith when 
taken in a  reasonable sense4 ,the      
opposition to the ,reform ,bill was a   

particular  case of the opposition to   
the advance of democracy4 ,the statement
 that  democracy has advanced and will  
advance1 is sometimes taken to be       
fatalistic4 ,people who make the        
assertion may answer for themselves4 ,i 
should answer1 as ,i think we should all
 answer now1 that the advance of        
democracy1 desirable or undesirable1    
depended upon causes far too deep  and  
general to be permanently affected by   
any ,reform ,bill4 ,it was only  one    
aspect of vast social changes which had 
been going on for  centuries2 and to    
propose to stop it by throwing out the  
,reform ,bill  was like proposing to    
stop a child's growth by forcing him to 
go on  wearing his long clothes4 ,sydney
 ,smith's answer might be immoral if it 
simply meant1 don't fight because you   
will be beaten4 ,it may often be a  duty
 to take a beating4 ,but it was1        
perhaps1 rather a way of saying  that if
 you want to stop the growth of         
democracy1 you must begin by  altering  

the course of the social1 intellectual  
and moral changes which  have been      
operating through many generations1 and 
that unless you can  do that1 it is idle
 to oppose one particular corollary1 and
 so to make  a revolution inevitable1   
instead of a peaceful development4 ,to  
say  that any change is impossible in   
the absolute sense1 may be fatalism2    
but it is simple good sense1 and        
therefore good science1 to say that to  
produce any change whatever you must    
bring to bear a force adequate to  the  
change4 ,when a man's leg is broken1 you
 can't expect to heal it by  a bit of   
sticking-plaster2 a pill is not         
supposed1 now1 to be a cure  for an     
earthquake2 and to insist upon such     
facts is not to be  fatalistic1 but     
simply to say that a remedy must bear   
some proportion  to an evil4 ,it is a   
commonplace to observe upon the         
advantage which  would have been gained 
if our grandfathers would have looked at
 the  ,french ,revolution               

scientifically4 ,a terrible catastrophe 
had occurred  abroad4 ,the true moral1  
as we all see now1 was that ,england    
should make  such reforms as would      
obviate the danger of a similar         
catastrophe at  home4 ,the moral which  
too many people drew was too often1 that
 all  reforms should be stopped2 with   
the result that the evils grew worse    
and social strata more profoundly       
alienated4 ,it is a first principle of  
scientific reasoning1 that a break-down 
of social order implies some  antecedent
 defect1 demanding an adequate remedy4  
,it is a primary  assumption of party   
argument1 that the opposite party is    
wholly wrong1  that its action is       
perfectly gratuitous1 and either        
causeless or  produced by the direct    
inspiration of the devil4 ,the struggle1
 upon the  scientific theory1 represents
 two elements in an evolution which can 
be  accomplished peacefully by such a   
reconstruction as will reconcile the    
conflicting aims and substitute harmony 

for discord4 ,on the other  doctrine1 it
 is a conflict of hopelessly            
antagonistic principles1 one  of which  
is to be forcibly crushed4    ,i hope   
that ,i am not too sanguine1 but ,i     
cannot help believing that in  this     
respect we have improved1 and improved  
by imbibing some of the  scientific     
doctrine4 ,i think that in recent       
discussions of the most  important      
topics1 however bitter and however much 
distorted by the old  party spirit1     
there is yet a clearer recognition than 
of old1 that  widely-spread discontent  
is not a reason for arbitrary           
suppression1 but  for seeking to        
understand and remove its causes4 ,we   
should act in the  spirit of ,spinoza's 
great saying2 and it should be our aim1 
as it was  his care1 neither to mock1 to
 bewail1 nor to denounce men's actions1 
but to understand them4 ,that is equally
 true of men's opinions4 ,if  they are  
violent1 passionate1 subversive of all  
order1 our duty is not  bare            

denunciations1 but a clear comprehension
 of the causes1 not of the  ostensible  
reasons1 of their opinions1 and a       
resolution to remove those  causes4 ,i  
think this view has made some way3 ,i am
 sure that it will  make more way if we 
become more scientific in spirit2 and it
 is one of  the main reasons for        
encouraging such a spirit4 ,the most    
obvious  difficulty just now is one upon
 which ,i must touch1 though with some  
fear and trembling4 ,a terrible weapon  
has lately been coming into  perfection1
 to which its inventors have given the  
elegant name of a  boom4 ,the principle 
is--so far as ,i can understand--that   
the right  frame of mind for dealing    
with the gravest problems is to generate
 a  state of violent excitement1 to     
adopt any remedy1 real or supposed1     
which suggests itself at the moment1 and
 to denounce everybody who  suggests    
difficulties as a cynic or a            
cold-blooded egoist2 and  therefore to  
treat grave chronic and organic diseases

 of society by  spasmodic impulses1 to  
make stringent laws without             
condescending to ask  whether they will 
work1 and try the boldest experiments   
without  considering whether they are   
likely to increase or diminish the evil4
  ,this1 as some people think1 is one of
 the inevitable consequences of         
democracy4 ,i hope that it is not2 but  
if it is1 it is one of the  inevitable  
consequences against which we1 as       
cultivators of science1  should most    
seriously protest1 in the hope that we  
may some day find  ,philip sober enough 
to consider the consequences of his     
actions under  the influence of         
spiritual intoxication4 ,professor      
,huxley1 in one of  those smart passages
 of arms which so forcibly illustrated  
his  intellectual vigour1 gave an       
apologue1 which ,i wish that ,i could   
steal  without acknowledgment4 ,he spoke
 of an ,irish carman who1 on being told 
that he was not going in the right      
direction1 replied that he was at  any  

rate going at a great pace4 ,the        
scientific doctrine is simply that  we  
should look at the map before we set out
 for ,utopia2 and ,i think  that a      
doctrine which requires to be enforced  
by every means in our  power4    ,this  
tendency1 of course1 comes out          
prominently in the important            
discussions of social and economic      
problems4 ,that is a matter upon  which 
,i cannot now dwell1 and which has been 
sufficiently emphasised by  many eminent
 writers4 ,if modern orators confined   
themselves to urging  that the old      
economists exaggerated their claims to  
scientific  accuracy1 and were1 in point
 of fact1 guilty of many logical errors 
and  hasty generalisations1 ,i1 at      
least1 could fully agree with them4 ,but
  the general impression seems to be1   
that because the old arguments were     
faulty1 all argument is irrelevant3 that
 because the alleged laws of  nature    
were wrongly stated1 there are no laws  
of nature at all2 and  that we may      

proceed to rearrange society1 to fix the
 rate of wages or  the rent of land or  
the incomes of capitalists without any  
reference at  all to the conditions     
under which social arrangements have    
been worked  out and actually carried   
on4 ,this is1 in short1 to sanction the 
most  obvious weakness of popular       
movements1 and to assure the ignorant   
and  thoughtless that they are above    
reason1 and their crude guesses         
infallible guides to truth4    ,one view
 which tries to give some plausibility  
to these assumptions is  summed up in   
the now current phrase about the masses 
and the  classes4 ,we all know the      
regular process of logical fence of the 
journalist1 i4e41 thrust and parry1     
which is repeated whenever such         
questions turn up4 ,the ,radical calls  
his opponent ,tory and reactionary4     
,the wicked ,tory1 it is said1 thinks   
only of the class interest2 believes    
that the nation exists for the sake of  
the ,house of ,lords2 lives in a  little

 citadel provided with all the good     
things1 which he is ready to  defend    
against every attempt at a juster       
distribution2 selfishness is  his one   
motive2 repression by brute force his   
only theory of government2  and his     
views of life in general are those of   
the wicked cynics who gaze  from their  
windows in ,pall ,mall4 ,then we have   
the roll of all the abuses  which have  
been defended by this miscreant and his 
like since the days  of ,george         
,,iii4--slavery and capital punishment1 
and pensions and  sinecures1 and        
protection and the church establishment4
 ,the popular  instinct1 it is urged1   
has been in the right in so many cases  
that there  is an enormous presumption  
in favour of the infallibility of all   
its  instincts4 ,the reply1 of course1  
is equally obvious4 ,your boast1 says   
the ,conservative1 that you please the  
masses1 is in effect a confession  that 
you truckle to the mob4 ,you mean that  
your doctrines spread in  proportion to 

the ignorance of your constituents4 ,you
 prove the merits  of your theories by  
showing that they disgust people the    
more they  think4 ,the ,liberalism of a 
district1 it has been argued1 varies    
with the  number of convictions for     
drunkenness4 ,if it be easy to denounce 
our  ancestors1 it is also easy to show 
how they built up the great empire      
which now shelters us2 and how1 if they 
had truckled1 as you would have  us     
truckle1 to popular whims1 we should    
have been deprived of our  commerce1 our
 manufactures1 and our position in the  
civilised world4 ,and  then it is easy  
to produce a list of all the base       
demagogues who have  misled popular     
impatience and ignorance from the days  
of ,cleon to those  of the ,french      
,convention1 or of the last disreputable
 boss bloated  with corruption and the  
plunder of some great ,american city4   
,this is the  result1 it is suggested1  
of pandering to the mob1 and generally  
ostracising the intelligent citizen4    

,i merely sketch the familiar arguments 
which any journalist has ready  at hand1
 and1 by a sufficient spice of          
references to actual affairs1  can work 
up into any number of pointed leading   
articles4 ,i will only  observe that    
such arguments seem to me to illustrate 
that curious  unreality of political    
theories of which ,i have spoken4 ,it   
seems to be  tacitly assumed on both    
sides1 that votes are determined by a   
process  of genuine reasoning4 ,one side
 may be ignorant and the other          
prejudiced2 but the arguments ,i have   
recapitulated seem to imply the         
assumption that the constituents really 
reflect upon the reasons for  and       
against the measures proposed1 and make 
up their minds accordingly4  ,they are  
spoken of as though they were a body of 
experts1 investigating  a scientific    
doctrine1 or at least a jury guided by  
the evidence laid  before them4 ,upon   
that assumption1 as it seems to me1 the 
moral would  be that the whole system is

 a palpable absurdity4 ,the vast        
majority of  voters scarcely think at   
all1 and would be incapable of judging  
if they  did4 ,hundreds of thousands    
care more for ,dr4 ,grace's last score  
or the  winner of the ,derby than for   
any political question whatever4 ,if    
they  have opinions1 they have neither  
the training nor the knowledge          
necessary to form any conclusion        
whatever4 ,consider the state of mind   
of the average voter--of nine men out of
 ten1 say1 whom you meet in the         
,strand4 ,ask yourselves honestly what  
value you would attach to his  opinion  
upon any great question--say1 of foreign
 politics or political  economy4 ,has he
 ever really thought about them8 ,is he 
superficially  acquainted with any of   
the relevant facts8 ,is he even capable 
of the  imaginative effort necessary to 
set before him the vast interests often 
affected8 ,and would the simple fact    
that he said ,yes to a given  question  
establish in your mind the smallest     

presumption against the  probability    
that the right answer would be ,no8     
,what are the chances  that a majority  
of people1 of whom not one in a hundred 
has any  qualifications for judging1    
will give a right judgment8 ,yet that is
 the  test suggested by most of the     
conventional arguments on both sides2   
for  ,i do not say this as intending to 
accept the anti-democratic  application4
 ,it is just as applicable1 ,i believe1 
to the educated and  the well-off4 ,i   
need not labour the point1 which is     
sufficiently  obvious4 ,i am quite      
convinced that1 for example1 the voters 
for a  university will be guided by     
unreasonable prejudices as the voters   
for  a metropolitan constituency4 ,in   
some ways they will be worse4 ,to find  
people who believe honestly in          
antiquated prejudices1 you must go to   
the people who have been trained to     
believe them4 ,an ecclesiastical        
seminary can manage to drill the pupils 
into professing absurdities  from which 

average common sense would shrink1 and  
only supply logical  machinery for      
warring against reason4 ,the reference  
to enlightened  aristocracies is common 
enough2 but ,i cannot discover that1    
taken in a  lump1 any particular        
aristocracy cannot be as narrow-minded1 
short-sighted1 and selfish1 as the most 
rampant democracy4 ,in point of  fact1  
we all know that political action is    
determined by instinct  rather than by  
reason4 ,i do not mean that instinct is 
opposed to  reason3 it is simply a      
crude1 undeveloped1 inarticulate form of
 reason2  it is blended with prejudices 
for which no reason is assigned1 or even
  regarded as requisite4 ,such blind    
instincts1 implying at most a kind of   
groping after error1 necessarily govern 
the majority of men of all  classes1 in 
political as in other movements4 ,the   
old apologists used to  argue on the    
hypothesis that men must have accepted  
,christianity on the  strength of a     
serious inquiry into the evidences4 ,the

 fallacy of the  doctrine is            
sufficiently plain3 they accepted it    
because it suited them  on the whole1   
and was fitted1 no doubt1 to their      
intellectual needs1  but was also fitted
 to their emotional and moral needs as  
developed  under certain social         
conditions4 ,the inference from the     
general  acceptance of any theory is not
 that it is true1 but that it is true   
enough to satisfy the very feeble demand
 for logic--that it is not  palpably    
absurd or self-contradictory2 and that1 
for some reason or  other1 it satisfies 
also the imagination1 the affections1   
and the  aspirations of the believers4  
,not to go into other questions1 this   
single remark indicates1 ,i think1 the  
attitude which the scientific  observer 
would adopt in regard to this ancient   
controversy4 ,he would  study the causes
 as well as the alleged reasons         
assignable for any  general instinct1   
and admit that its existence is one of  
the primary  data which have to be taken

 into account4 ,to denounce democracy or
  aristocracy is easy enough2 and it    
saves trouble to assume that ,god is  on
 one side and the devil on the other4   
,the true method1 ,i take it1 is  that  
which was indicated by ,tocqueville's   
great book upon democracy in  ,america2 
a book which1 if ,i may trust my own    
impressions1 though  necessarily        
imperfect as regards ,america1 is a     
perfectly admirable  example of the     
fruitful method of studying such        
problems4 ,though an  aristocrat by     
birth and breeding1 ,tocqueville had the
 wisdom to examine  democratic beliefs  
and institutions in a thoroughly        
impartial spirit2  and1 instead of      
simply denouncing or admiring1 to trace 
the genesis of  the prevalent ideas and 
their close connection with the general 
state  of social development4 ,an       
inquiry conducted in that spirit would  
not  lead to the absolute dogmatic      
conclusions in which the superficial    
controversialist delights4 ,it would    

show1 perhaps1 that there was at  least 
this much truth in the democratic       
contention1 that the masses  are1 by    
their position1 exempt from some of the 
prejudices which are  ingrained in the  
members of a smaller caste2 that they   
are therefore  more accessible to       
certain moral considerations1 and more  
anxious to  promote the greatest        
happiness of the greater number4 ,but it
 might also  show how the weakness of   
the ignorant and untrained mind produces
 the  characteristic evils of           
sentimentalism and impatience1 of a     
belief in  the omnipotence of           
legislation1 and an excessive jealousy  
of all  superiorities2 and might        
possibly1 too1 exhibit certain merits   
which  are impressed upon the aristocrat
 by his sense of the obligations of     
nobility4 ,i do not in the least mean to
 express any opinion about such         
questions2 ,i desire only to indicate   
the temper in which ,i conceive  that   
they should be approached4    ,i have   

lived long enough to be utterly unable  
to believe--though some  older          
politicians than ,i seem still to       
believe1 especially on the eve  of a    
dissolution--that any of our party lines
 coincide with the lines  between good  
and bad1 wise and foolish4 ,every one1  
of course1 will  repudiate the abstract 
theory4 ,yet we may notice how          
constantly it is  assumed2 and can see  
to what fallacies it leads when we look 
for a  moment at the historical         
questions which no longer unite party   
feeling4  ,few1 indeed1 even of our     
historians1 can write without taking    
party  views of such questions4 ,even   
the candid and impartial seem to deserve
  these epithets chiefly because they   
want imagination1 and can cast  blame or
 applaud alternately1 because they do   
not enter into the real  spirit of      
either party4 ,their views are sometimes
 a medley of  inconsistent theories1    
rather than a deeper view which might   
reconcile  apparent inconsistencies4 ,i 

will only mention one point which often 
strikes me1 and may lead to a relevant  
remark4 ,every royalist  historian1 we  
all know1 labours to prove that ,charles
 ,i4 was a saint1  and ,cromwell a      
hypocrite4 ,the view was natural at the 
time of the civil  wars2 but it now     
should suggest an obvious logical       
dilemma4 ,if the  monarchical theory    
which ,charles represented was sound1   
and ,charles was  also a wise and good  
man1 what caused the rebellion8 ,a      
perfect man  driving a perfect engine   
should surely not have run it off the   
rails4  ,the royalist ought to seek to  
prove that ,charles was a fool and a    
knave1 to account for the collapse of   
royalty2 and the case against  royalty  
is all the stronger1 if you could show  
that ,charles1 in spite  of impeccable  
virtue1 was forced by his position to   
end on the  scaffold4 ,choose between   
him and the system which he applied4 ,so
  ,catholics and conservatives are never
 tired of denouncing ,henry ,,viii4  and

 the ,french revolutionists4 ,so far as 
,i can guess 7,i know very  little about
 it71 their case is a very strong one4  
,i somehow believe1  in spite of        
,froude1 that ,henry ,,viii4 was a      
tyrant2 and eulogies upon  the reign of 
terror generally convince me that a     
greater set of  scoundrels seldom came  
to the surface1 than the perpetrators of
 those  enormities4 ,but then the real  
inference is1 to my mind1 very          
different4  ,henry ,,viii4 was the      
product of the previous time2 the       
ultimate outcome  of that ideal state of
 things in which the church had its own 
way  during the ages of truth4 ,must not
 the system have been wrong1 when it    
had so lost all moral weight as to be at
 the mercy of a ruffianly  plunderer8   
,and so1 as we all admit now1 the       
strongest condemnation of  the old      
,french rgime is the fact that it had   
not only produced  such a set of        
miscreants as those who have cast       
permanent odium even  upon sound        

principles2 but that its king and rulers
 went down before  them without even an 
attempt at manly resistance4 ,a         
revolution does  not1 perhaps1 justify  
itself2 it does not prove that its      
leaders judged  rightly and acted       
virtuously3 but1 beyond a doubt1 it     
condemns the  previous order which      
brought it about4 ,what a horrid thing  
is the  explosion6 ,why1 is the obvious 
answer1 did you allow the explosive     
materials to accumulate1 till the first 
match must fire the train8 ,the         
greatest blot upon ,burke1 ,i need      
hardly say1 is that his passions        
blinded him in his age1 to this1 as we  
now see1 inevitable conclusion4    ,the 
old-fashioned view1 ,i fancy1 is a relic
 of that view of history in  which all  
the great events and changes were       
personified in some  individual hero4   
,the old legislators1 ,lycurgus and     
,solon and the  like1 were supposed to  
have created the institutions which were
 really  the products of a slow growth4 

,when a favourable change due to        
economical causes took place in the     
position of the ,french peasantry1  the 
peasants1 says ,michelet somewhere1     
called it good king ,henry4  ,carlyle's 
theory of hero worship is partly an     
application of the same  mode of        
thought4 ,you embody your principle in  
some concrete person2  canonise him or  
damn him1 as he represents truth or     
error2 and take  credit to yourself for 
insight and for a lofty morality4 ,it   
becomes a  kind of blasphemy to suggest 
that your great man1 who thus stands for
  an inspired leader dropped straight   
out of heaven1 was probably at best     
very imperfect1 one-sided1 and at least 
as much of a product as a  producer4    
,the crudity of the method is even      
regarded as a proof of its  morality4   
,your common-place moralist likes to    
call everything black or  white2 he     
despises all qualifications as          
casuistical refinements1 and  plumes    
himself on the decisive verdict1 saint  

or sinner1 with which he  labels the    
adherents and opponents of his party4   
,and yet we know as a  fact1 how absurd 
are such judgments4 ,we know how men are
 betrayed into  bad causes from good    
motives1 or put on the right side       
because it  happens to harmonise with   
their lower interests4 ,saints--so we   
are  told--have been the cruellest      
persecutors2 and kings1 acting from     
purely selfish ambition1 have           
consolidated nations or crushed effete  
and mischievous institutions4 ,if we can
 make up our minds as to which  was1 on 
the whole1 the best cause1--and1        
generally speaking1 both sides          
represented some sound principle1--it   
does not follow that it was also  the   
cause of all the best men4 ,before we   
can judge of the individual1  we must   
answer a hundred difficult questions3   
,if he took the right  side1 did he take
 it from the right motives8 ,was it from
 personal  ambition or pure patriotism8 
,did he see what was the real question  

at  issue8 ,did he foresee the          
inevitable effect of the measures which 
he  advocated8 ,if he did not see1 was  
it because he was human1 and  therefore 
short-sighted2 or because he was brutal1
 and therefore  wanting in sympathy2 or 
because he had intellectual defects1    
which made  it impossible for him to    
escape from the common illusions of the 
time8  ,these1 and any number of similar
 difficulties1 arise when we try to     
judge of the great men who form         
landmarks in our history1 from the time 
of ,boadicea to that of ,queen          
,victoria4 ,they are always amusing1 and
  sometimes important2 but there is     
always a danger that they may warp  our 
views of the vital facts4 ,the beauty of
 ,mary ,queen of ,scots still           
disqualifies many people from judging   
calmly the great issues of a most       
important historical epoch4 ,i will     
leave it to you to apply this to our    
views of modern politics1 and judge the 
value of the ordinary  assumption which 

assumes that all good men must be on one
 side4    ,now we may say that the      
remedy for such illusions points to the 
importance of a doctrine which is by no 
means new1 but which has1 ,i  think1    
bearings not always recognised4 ,we have
 been told1 again and  again1 since     
,plato wrote his ,republic1 that society
 is an organism4 ,it  is replied that   
this is at best an analogy upon which   
too great stress  must not be laid2 and 
we are warned against the fanciful      
comparisons  which some writers have    
drawn between the body corporate and the
 actual  physical body1 with its cells1 
tissues1 nervous system1 and so forth4  
,now1 whatever may be the danger of that
 mode of reasoning1 ,i think that  the  
statement1 properly understood1         
corresponds to a simple logical  canon  
too often neglected in historical and   
political reasonings4 ,it  means1 ,i    
take it1 in the first place1 that every 
man is a product as  well as a producer2
 that there is no such thing as the     

imaginary  individual with fixed        
properties1 whom theorists are apt to   
take for  granted as the base of their  
reasoning2 that no man or group of men  
is  intelligible without taking into    
account the mass of instincts           
transmitted through their predecessors1 
and therefore without referring  to     
their position in the general history of
 human development4 ,and1  secondly1 it 
is essential to remember in speaking of 
any great man1 or  of any institution1  
their position as parts of a complicated
 system of  actions and emotions4 ,the  
word if1 ,i may say1 changes its        
meaning4  ,if ,harold had won the battle
 of ,hastings1 what would have been the 
result8 ,the answer would be            
comparatively simple1 if we could1 in   
the  old fashion1 attribute to ,william 
the ,conqueror all the results in which 
he played a conspicuous part3 if1       
therefore1 we could make out a  definite
 list of effects of which he was the    
cause1 and1 by simply  deducting them1  

after ,coleridge's fashion1 from the    
effects which  actually followed1       
determine what was the precise balance4 
,but when we  consider how many causes  
were actually in operation1 how         
impossible it  is to disentangle and    
separate them1 and say this followed    
from that1  and that other from         
something else1 we have to admit that   
the might have  been is simply          
indiscoverable4 ,the great man may have 
hastened what was  otherwise inevitable2
 he may simply have supplied the        
particular point1  round which a        
crystallisation took place of forces    
which would have  otherwise discovered  
some other centre2 and the fact that he 
succeeded  in establishing certain      
institutions or laws may be simply a    
proof that  he saw a little more clearly
 than others the direction towards which
  more general causes were inevitably   
propelling the nation4 ,briefly1 we     
cannot isolate the particular cause in  
this case1 and have to remember  at     

every moment that it was only one factor
 in a vast and complex series  of       
changes1 which would no doubt have taken
 a different turn without it1  but of   
which it may be indefinitely difficult  
to say what was the  precise deflection 
due to its action4    ,in trying to     
indicate the importance1 ,i have had to 
dwell upon the  difficulty1 of applying 
anything like scientific methods to     
political  problems4 ,i shall conclude  
by trying once more to indicate why1 in 
spite of this1 ,i hold that the attempt 
is desirable1 and may be  fruitful4     
,people sometimes say that scientific   
methods are inapplicable because  we    
cannot try experiments in social        
matters4 ,i remember being long ago     
struck by a remark of ,dr4 ,arnold1     
which has some bearing upon this        
assertion4 ,he observed upon the great  
advantage possessed by ,aristotle  in   
the vast number of little republics in  
his time1 each of which was  virtually  
an experiment in politics4 ,i always    

thought that this was  fallacious       
somehow1 and ,i fancy that it is not    
hard to indicate the  general nature of 
the fallacy4 ,freeman1 upon whose       
services to thorough  and accurate study
 of history ,i am unworthy to pronounce 
an eulogy1  fell into the same fallacy1 
,i fancy1 when he undertook to write a  
history of ,federal ,governments4 ,he   
fancied that because the ,achan  ,league
 and the ,swiss ,cantons and the ,united
 ,states of ,america all had  this point
 in common1 and that they represented   
the combinations of  partially          
independent ,states1 their history would
 be in a sense  continuous4 ,the obvious
 consideration that the federations     
differed in  every possible way1 in     
their religions and state of            
civilisation and  whole social          
structure1 might be neglected4          
,freeman's tendency to be  indifferent  
to everything which was not in the      
narrowest sense  political led him to   
this--as it seems to me--pedantic       

conception4 ,if  the prosperity of a    
nation depended exclusively upon the    
form of its  government1 ,aristotle1 as 
,arnold remarks1 would have had before  
him a  greater number of experiments    
than the modern observer4 ,but the      
assumption is obviously wrong4 ,every   
one of these ancient ,states  depended  
for its prosperity upon a vast number of
 conditions--its race1  its geographical
 position1 its stage of development1 and
 so forth1  quite impossible to tabulate
 or analyse2 and the form of government 
which suited one would be entirely      
inapplicable to another4 ,to  extricate 
from all these conflicting elements the 
precise influence due  to any           
institutions would be a task beyond the 
powers of any number of  philosophers2  
and indeed the perplexity would probably
 be increased by  the very number of    
experiments4 ,to make an experiment     
fruitful1 it is  necessary to eliminate 
all the irrelevant elements which       
intrude into  the concrete cases        

spontaneously offered by nature1 and1   
for example1  to obtain two cases       
differing only in one element1 to which 
we may  therefore plausibly attribute   
other contrasts4 ,now1 the history of a 
hundred or a thousand small ,states     
would probably only present the         
introduction of new and perplexing      
elements for every new case4 ,the       
influence1 again1 of individuals1 or    
accident of war1 or natural             
catastrophes1 is greater in proportion  
as the ,state is smaller1 and  therefore
 makes it more difficult to observe the 
permanent and  underlying influences4   
,it seems to me1 therefore1 that the    
study1 say  of ,english history1 where  
we have a continuous growth over many   
centuries1 where the disturbing         
influences of individuals or chance are 
in a greater degree cancelled by the    
general tendencies working beneath      
them1 we have really a far more         
instructive field for political         
observation4 ,this may help us to see   

what are the kinds of results  which may
 be anticipated from sociological study 
undertaken in a  serious spirit4 ,the   
growth1 for example1 of the industrial  
system of  ,england is a profoundly     
interesting subject of inquiry1 to which
 we are  even now only beginning to do  
justice4 ,historians have admitted1 even
  from the time of ,hume1 that the ideal
 history should give less of mere       
battles and intrigues1 and more account 
of those deeper and more  continuous    
processes which lie1 so to speak1       
beneath the surface4 ,they  have hardly1
 ,i think1 even yet realised the full   
bearing and importance  of this         
observation4 ,yet1 of late1 much has    
been done1 though much  still remains to
 do1 in the way of a truly scientific   
study of the  development of            
institutions1 political1 ecclesiastical1
 industrial1 and  so forth1 of this and 
other countries4 ,as this tendency      
grows1 we may  hope gradually to have a 
genuine history of the ,english people2 

an  account--not of the virtues and     
vices of ,mary ,queen of ,scots1 or     
arguments as to the propriety of cutting
 off ,charles ,i4's head--but a         
trustworthy account of the way in which 
the actual structure of modern  society 
has been developed out of its simpler   
germs4 ,the biographies of  great kings 
and generals1 and so forth1 will always 
be interesting2 but  to the genuine     
historian of the future they will be    
interesting not so  much as giving room 
for psychological analyses or for       
dramatic  portraits1 but as indications 
of the great social forces which        
produced  them1 and the direction of    
which at the moment may be illustrated  
by  their cases4 ,i have spoken of the  
history of our industrial system4 ,to   
know what was the position of the       
,english labourer at various times1  how
 it was affected by the political       
changes or by the great mechanical      
discoveries1 to observe what grievances 
arose1 what remedies were  applied or   

sought to be applied1 and with what     
result1--to treat all  this with due    
reference to the whole social and       
intellectual evolution  of which it     
formed a part1 may well call forth the  
powers of our  acutest and most         
thoroughgoing inquirers1 and will1 when 
it is done1  give essential data for    
some of the most vitally important      
problems of  the day4 ,this is what ,i  
understand by an application of the     
scientific  spirit to social and        
political problems4 ,we cannot try      
experiments1 it  is said1 in historical 
questions4 ,we cannot help always trying
  experiments1 and experiments of vast  
importance4 ,every man has to try  an   
experiment upon himself when he chooses 
his career2 and the results  are        
frequently very unpleasant1 though very 
instructive4 ,we have to be  our own    
experiments4 ,every man who sets up in  
business tries an  experiment1 ending in
 fortune or in bankruptcy4 ,every strike
 is an  experiment1 and generally a     

costly one4 ,every attempt at starting a
 new  charitable organisation1 or a new 
system of socialism or co-operation1  is
 an experiment4 ,every new law is an    
experiment1 rash or otherwise4  ,and    
from all these experiments we do at     
least collect a certain number  of      
general observations1 which1 though     
generally consigned to  copybooks1 are  
not without value4 ,what is true1       
however1 is that we  cannot try such    
experiments as a man of science can     
sometimes try in  his laboratory1 where 
he can select and isolate the necessary 
elements  in any given process1 and     
decide1 by subjecting them to proper    
conditions1 how a definite question is  
to be answered4 ,our first  experiments 
are all in the rough1 so to speak1 tried
 at haphazard1 and  each involving an   
indefinite number of irrelevant         
conditions4 ,but there  is a partial    
compensation4 ,we cannot tabulate the   
countless experiments  which have been  
tried with all their distracting        

varieties4 ,yet in a  certain sense the 
answer is given for us4 ,for the social 
structure at  any period is in fact the 
net product of all the experiments that 
have  been made by the individuals of   
which it is and has been composed4      
,therefore1 so far as we can obtain some
 general views of the successive        
changes in social order which have been 
gradually and steadily  developing      
themselves throughout the more noisy and
 conspicuous but  comparatively         
superficial political disturbances1 we  
can detect the  true meaning of some    
general phenomena in which the actors   
themselves  were unconscious of the     
determining causes4 ,we can see more or 
less  what were the general causes which
 have led to various forms of           
associations1 to the old guilds1 or the 
modern factory system1 to the  trades   
unions or the co-operative societies2   
and correcting and  verifying our       
general results by a careful examination
 of the  particular instances1          

approximate1 vaguely it may be and      
distantly1 to  some such conception of  
the laws of development of different    
social  tissues as1 if not properly     
scientific1 may yet belong to the       
scientific order of thought4 ,thus1 when
 distracted by this or that  particular 
demand1 by promises of the millennium to
 be inaugurated  to-morrow by an ,act of
 ,parliament1 or threats of some social 
cataclysm  to overwhelm us if we concede
 an inch to wicked agitators1 we may    
succeed in placing ourselves at a higher
 point of view1 from which it  is       
possible to look over wider horizons1 to
 regard what is happening  to-day in its
 relations to slow processes of         
elaboration1 and to form  judgments     
based upon wide and systematic inquiry1 
which1 if they do not  entitle us to    
predict particular events1 as an        
astronomer predicts an  eclipse1 will at
 least be a guide to sane and sober     
minds1 and suggest  at once a humbler   
appreciation of what is within our      

power1 and--,i  think also--a more      
really hopeful anticipation of genuine  
progress in  the future4    ,all        
scientific inquiry is an interrogation  
of nature4 ,we have1 in  ,bacon's grand 
sententious phrase1 to command nature by
 obeying4 ,we  learn what are the laws  
of social growth by living them4 ,the   
great  difficulty of the interrogation  
is to know what questions we are to     
put4 ,under the guidance of             
metaphysicians1 we have too often asked 
questions to which no answer is         
conceivable1 like children1 who in      
first trying to think1 ask1 why are we  
living in the nineteenth  century1 why  
is ,england an island1 or why does pain 
hurt1 or why do two  and two make four8 
,the only answer is by giving the same  
facts in a  different set of words1 and 
that is a kind of answer to which       
metaphysical dexterity sometimes gives  
an air of plausibility4 ,more           
frequently our ingenuity takes the form 
of sanctioning preconceived  prejudices1

 by wrapping up our conclusion in our   
premisses1 and then  bringing it out    
triumphantly with the air of a rigorous 
deduction4 ,the  progress of social     
science implies1 in the first place1 the
 abandonment  of the weary system of    
hunting for fruitful truths in the      
region of  chimeras1 and trying to make 
empty logical concepts do the work of   
observation of facts4 ,it involves1     
again1 a clear perception of the  kind  
of questions which can be profitably    
asked1 and the limits within  which an  
answer1 not of the illusory kind1 can   
really be expected4 ,and  then we may   
come to see that1 without knowing it1 we
 have really been  trying a vast and    
continuous experiment1 since the race   
first began to  be human4 ,we have1     
blindly and unconsciously1 constructed a
 huge  organism which does1 somehow or  
other1 provide a great many millions of 
people with a tolerable amount of food  
and comfort4 ,we have  accomplished     
this1 ,i say1 unconsciously2 for each   

man1 limited to his  own little sphere1 
and limited to his own interests1 and   
guided by his  own prejudices and       
passions1 has been as ignorant of more  
general  tendencies as the coral insect 
of the reef which it has helped to      
build4 ,to become distinctly conscious  
of what it is that we have all  been    
doing all this time1 is one step in     
advance4 ,we have obeyed in  ignorance2 
and as obedience becomes conscious1 we  
may hope1 within  certain narrow limits1
 to command1 or1 at least1 to direct4   
,an enlarged  perception of what have   
been the previous results may enable us 
to see  what results are possible1 and  
among them to select what may be worthy 
ends4 ,it is not to be supposed that we 
shall ever get beyond the need  of      
constant and careful experiment4 ,but1  
in proportion as we can  cultivate the  
right frame of mind1 as each member of  
society requires  wider sympathies and a
 larger horizon1 it is permissible to   
hope that  the experiments may become   

more intelligent2 that we shall not1 as 
has  so often been done1 increase       
poverty by the very remedies which are  
intended to remove it1 or diverge from  
the path of steady progressive          
development1 into the chase of some wild
 chimera1 which requires for  its       
achievement only the radical alteration 
of all the data of  experience4         
,annihilate space and time1 and make two
 lovers happy1 was  the modest petition 
of an enthusiast2 and he would probably 
have been  ready to join in the prayer1 
make all men angels1 and then we shall  
have a model society4 ,although in      
saying this my immediate moral is to    
preach sobriety1 ,i do not intend to    
denounce enthusiasm1 but to urge a      
necessity of organising enthusiasm4 ,i  
only recommend people not to  venture   
upon flying machines before they have   
studied the laws of  mechanics2 but ,i  
earnestly hope that some day we may be  
able to call a  balloon as we now call a
 cab4 ,to point out the method1 and to  

admit  that it is not laborious1 is not 
to discourage aspiration1 but to look   
facts in the face3 not to preach        
abandonment of enthusiasm1 but to urge  
that enthusiasm should be systematic1   
should lead men to study the  conditions
 of success1 and to make a bridge before
 they leap the gulf4          ,,the     
,,sphere ,,of ,,political ,,economy4    
,there seem to be at present many       
conflicting views as to the nature of   
,political ,economy4 ,there is a popular
 impression that ,political  ,economy1  
or1 at any rate1 the so-called classical
 doctrine1 the  doctrine which was made 
most definite by ,ricardo1 and accepted 
with  modifications by ,j4 ,s4 ,mill1 is
 altogether exploded4 ,their main       
doctrines1 it is suggested1 were little 
better than mares' nests1 and  we may   
set aside their pretensions to have     
founded an exact science4  ,what1 then1 
is to come in its place8 ,are we simply 
to admit that there  is no certainty    
about economical problems1 and to fall  

back upon mere  empiricism8             
,everything1--shall we say8--is to be   
regarded as an open  question4 ,that is1
 perhaps1 a common impression in the    
popular mind4  ,yet1 on the other hand1 
we may find some very able thinkers     
applying  mathematical formul to        
economics2 and that seems to suppose1   
that  within a certain region they      
obtain results comparable in precision  
and  accuracy to those of the great     
physical sciences4 ,the topic is a very 
wide one2 and it would be presumptuous  
in me to speak dogmatically4 ,i  wish1  
however1 to suggest certain             
considerations which may1 perhaps1 be   
worth taking into account2 and1 as ,i   
must speak briefly1 ,i must not  attempt
 to supply all the necessary            
qualifications4 ,i can only attempt  to 
indicate what seems to me to be the     
correct point of view1 and  apologise if
 ,i appear to speak too dogmatically1   
simply because ,i  cannot waste time by 
expressions of diffidence1 by reference 

to  probable criticisms1 or even by a   
full statement of my own reasons4    ,a 
full exposition would have to define the
 sphere of ,political ,economy  by      
describing its data and its methods4    
,what do we assume1 and how do  we      
reason8 ,a complete answer to these     
questions would indicate the  limits    
within which we can hope for valid      
conclusions4 ,i will first  refer1      
briefly1 to a common statement of one   
theory advocated by the  old-fashioned  
or classical school4 ,economic doctrine1
 they have said1  supposes a certain    
process of abstraction4 ,we have to do  
with what has  been called the economic 
man4 ,he is not1 happily1 the real man4 
,he is  an imaginary being1 whose sole  
principle of action is to buy in the    
cheapest and sell in the dearest market3
 a man1 more briefly1 who  always       
prefers a guinea--even a dirty          
guinea--to a pound of the  cleanest4    
,economists reply to the remonstrances  
of those who deny the  existence of such

 a monster1 by adding that they do not  
for a moment  suppose that men in       
general1 or even tradesmen or           
stockbrokers1 are in  reality such      
beings1--mere money-making machines1    
stripped bare of all  generous or       
altruistic sentiment--but simply that1  
as a matter of fact1  most people do1   
ceteris paribus1 prefer a guinea to a   
pound2 and  that so large a part of our 
industrial activity is carried on from  
motives of this kind1 that we may obtain
 a fair approximation to the  actual    
course of affairs by considering them as
 the sole motives4 ,we  shall not go    
wrong1 for example1 in financial        
questions1 by assuming  that the sole   
motive of speculators in the ,stock     
,exchange is the desire  to make money4 
,now1 it is possible1 perhaps1 to       
justify this way of  putting the case1  
by certain qualifications4 ,i think1    
however1 that1 if  strictly interpreted1
 it is apt to cover a serious fallacy4  
,the  economic man theory1 we may say1  

assumes too much in one direction1  and 
too little in another4 ,it assumes too  
much if it is understood as  implying   
that the desire for wealth is a purely  
selfish desire4 ,a man  may desire to   
make money in order simply to gratify   
his own sensual  appetites4 ,but he may 
also desire to be independent2 and that 
may  include a desire to do his part in 
the work of society1 and probably  does 
include some desire to relieve others of
 a burden4 ,the wish to be              
self-supporting is not necessarily or   
purely selfish4 ,and obviously1  too1   
one great motive in all such occupations
 is the desire to support  a family1 and
 one main inducement to saving is the   
desire to support it  after your own    
death4 ,remove such motives1 and half   
the impulses to  regular industrial     
energy of all kinds would be destroyed4 
,we must1  therefore1 give our economic 
man credit for motives referring to many
  interests besides those which he      
buttons into his own waistcoat4 ,and    

therefore1 too1 as ,i have said1 the    
assumption is insufficient4 ,the  very  
conception of economic science supposes 
all that is supposed1 in  the growth of 
a settled order of society4 ,the purest 
type of the  economic man1 as he is     
sometimes described1 would be realised  
in the  lowest savage1 as sometimes     
described1 who is absolutely selfish1   
who  knocks his child on the head       
because it cries1 and eats his aged     
parent  if he cannot find a supply of   
roots4 ,but such a being could only form
  herds1 not societies4 ,political      
,economy only becomes conceivable when  
we suppose certain institutions to have 
been developed4 ,it assumes1  obviously1
 and in the first place1 the institution
 of property2 it  becomes applicable1   
with less qualification1 in proportion  
to the  growth of the corresponding     
sentiments2 it takes for granted all    
that  highly elaborate set of instincts 
which induce me1 when ,i want           
something1 to produce an equivalent in  

exchange for it1 instead of  going out  
to take it by force4 ,the more thorough 
the respect for  property1 the more     
applicable are rules of economics2 and  
that respect  implies a long training in
 that sense of other people's rights1   
which1  unfortunately1 is by no means so
 perfect as might be desired4    ,it    
follows1 then1 that the economist really
 assumes more--and rightly  assumes     
more--than he sometimes claims4 ,he     
assumes what ,adam ,smith  assumed at   
the opening of his great treatise3 that 
is1 the division of  labour4 ,but the   
division of labour implies the          
organisation of society4  ,it implies   
that one man is growing corn while      
another is digging gold1  because each  
is confident that he will be able to    
exchange the products  of his own labour
 for the products of the other man's    
labour4 ,this1 of  course1 implies      
settled order1 respect for contracts1   
the preservation  of peace1 and the     
abolition of force throughout the area  

occupied by  the society4 ,and this1    
again1 is only possible in so far as    
certain  political and ecclesiastical   
and military institutions have been     
definitely constructed4 ,the economic   
assumption is really an  assumption--not
 of a certain psychological condition of
 the average  man1 but--of the existence
 of a certain social mechanism4 ,a      
complete  science would clear up fully a
 problem which must occur often to all  
of  us3 ,how do you account for ,london8
 ,how is it that four or five millions  
of people manage to subsist on an area  
of a few square miles1 which  itself    
produces nothing8 that other millions   
all over the world are  engaged in      
providing for their wants8 that food and
 clothes and fuel1  in sufficient       
quantities to preserve life1 are being  
distributed with  tolerable regularity  
to each unit in this vast and apparently
 chaotic  crowd8 and that1 somehow or   
other1 we struggle on1 well or ill1 by  
the  help of a gigantic commissariat1   

performing functions incomparably more  
complex than were ever needed for       
military purposes8 ,the answer  supposes
 that there is1 as a matter of fact1 a  
great industrial  organisation which    
discharges the various functions of     
producing1  exchanging1 distributing1   
and so forth2 and that its mutual       
relations  are just as capable of being 
investigated and stated as the relations
  between different parts of an army4   
,the men and officers do not wear       
uniforms2 they are not explicitly       
drilled or subject to a definite code   
of discipline2 and their rates of pay   
are not settled by any central          
authority4 ,but there are capitalists1  
undertakers and labourers1  merchants   
and retail dealers and contractors1 and 
so forth1 just as  certainly as there   
are generals and privates1 horse1 foot1 
and  artillery2 and their mutual        
relations are equally definable4 ,the   
economist has to explain the working of 
this industrial mechanism2 and  the     

thought may sometimes occur to us1 that 
it is strange that he  should find the  
task so difficult4 ,since we ourselves  
have made1 or at  any rate constitute1  
the mechanism1 why should it be so      
puzzling to  find out what it is8 ,we   
are cooperating in a systematic         
production and  distribution of wealth1 
and we surely ought not to find any     
impenetrable mystery in discovering what
 it is that we are doing every  day of  
our lives4 ,certain economists writing  
within this century have  often been    
credited with the discovery of the true 
theory of rent1 or1  which is equally   
good for my purpose1 of starting a false
 theory4 ,yet  landowners and agents had
 been letting farms and houses for      
generations2 and surely they ought to   
have known what it was that they  were  
themselves doing4 ,one explanation of   
the difficulty is1 that  whereas an army
 is constituted by certain regulations  
of a central  authority1 the industrial 
army has grown up unconsciously and     

spontaneously4 ,its multitudinous       
members have only looked each at his    
own little circle2 the labourer only    
thinks of his wages1 and the  capitalist
 of his profits1 without considering his
 relations to the  whole system of which
 he forms a part4 ,the peasant drives   
his plough  for wages1 and buys his tea 
as if the tea fell like manna from the  
skies1 without thinking of the curious  
relation into which he is thus  brought 
with the natives of another hemisphere4 
,the order which results  from all these
 independent activities appeared to the 
older economists  as an illustration of 
the doctrine of ,final ,causes4         
,providence had so  ordered things that 
each man1 by pursuing his own interests1
 pursued  the interests of all4 ,to a   
later school it appears rather as an    
illustration of the doctrine by which   
organisms are constructed through  the  
struggle for existence and the survival 
of the fittest4 ,in either  case1 it    
seems as though the mechanism were made 

rather for us than by  us2 that it is   
the product of conditions which we      
cannot control1  instead of being an    
arrangement put together by conscious   
volitions4  ,and1 therefore1 when the   
economist shows us what in fact are the 
existing arrangements and their mutual  
relations1 he appears to be  making a   
discovery of a scientific fact as much  
as if he were  describing the anatomy of
 some newly-discovered animal or plant4 
,the real assumption of the economist   
therefore is1 as ,i think1 simply  the  
existence of a certain industrial       
organisation1 which has a real          
existence as much as an army or a       
church2 and there is no reason why  his 
description should not be as accurate as
 the complexity of the  facts allows4   
,he is giving us the anatomy of society 
considered as a  huge mechanism for     
producing and distributing wealth1 and  
he makes an  abstraction only in the    
sense that he is considering one set of 
facts  at a time4 ,the military writer  

would describe the constitution of an   
army without going into the             
psychological or political conditions   
which  are of course implied1 and       
without considering the soldiers in any 
other relations than those implied in   
their military services4 ,in the  same  
way1 the economist describes the army of
 industry1 and classifies  its          
constituent parts4 ,in order to explain 
their mutual relations1 he  has to make 
certain further assumptions1 of which it
 would be rash to  attempt a precise    
summary4 ,he assumes as a fact1 what has
 of course  always been known1 that     
scarcity implies dearness and plenty    
cheapness2  that commodities flow to the
 markets where they will fetch the      
highest  prices2 that there is a certain
 gravitation towards equalisation of    
profits among capitalists1 and of wages 
among labourers2 so that  capital or    
labour will flow towards the employments
 in which they will  secure the highest 
reward4 ,he endeavours to give the      

greatest accuracy  to such formul1 of   
which nobody1 so far as ,i know1 denies 
a certain  approximate truth4 ,so long  
as they hold good1 his inferences1 if   
logically drawn1 will also hold good4   
,they take for granted certain          
psychological facts1 such as are implied
 in all statements about human  nature4 
,but the economist1 as an economist1 is 
content to take them for  granted       
without investigating the ultimate      
psychological laws upon  which they     
depend4 ,those laws1 or rather their    
results1 are a part of  his primary     
data1 although he may go so far into    
psychological problems  as to try to    
state them more accurately4 ,the        
selfishness or  unselfishness of the    
economic man has to be considered by the
  psychologist or by the moralist2 but  
the economist has only to consider      
their conclusions so far as they affect 
the facts4 ,so long as it is  true1 for 
example1 that scarcity causes dearness1 
that profits attract  capital1 that     

demand and supply tend to equalise each 
other1 and so  forth1 his reasonings are
 justified2 and the further questions of
 the  ethical and psychological         
implications of these facts must be     
treated  by a different science4 ,the   
question of the play of economic forces 
thus generally reduces itself to a      
problem which may be thus stated3  ,what
 are the conditions of industrial       
equilibrium8 ,how must prices1  rates of
 wages1 and profit be related in order  
that the various classes  concerned may 
receive such proportions of produce as  
are compatible  with the maintenance of 
the existing system of organisation8 ,if
 any  specified change occurs1 if       
production becomes easier or more       
difficult1 if a tax be imposed1 or a    
regulation of any kind affects  previous
 conditions1 what changes will be       
necessary to restore the  equilibrium8  
,these are the main problems of         
,political ,economy4 ,to  solve1 or     
attempt to solve them1 we have to       

describe accurately the  existing       
mechanism1 and to suppose that it will  
regulate itself on the  assumption which
 ,i have indicated as to demand and     
supply1 the flow of  capital and labour1
 and so forth4 ,to go beyond these      
assumptions1 and  to justify them by    
psychological and other considerations1 
may be and  is a most interesting task1 
but it takes us beyond the sphere of    
,economics proper4    ,i must here      
diverge for a little1 to notice the view
 of the school of  economists which     
seems to regard scientific accuracy as  
attainable by a  different path4        
,jevons1 its most distinguished leader  
in ,england1 says  roundly1 that        
political science must be a mathematical
 science1  because it deals throughout  
with quantities2 and we have been since 
provided with a number of formul1       
corresponding to this doctrine4 ,the    
obvious general reply would be1 that    
,political ,economy cannot be an  exact 
science because it also deals throughout

 with human desires4 ,the  objection is 
not simply that our data are too vague4 
,that objection1 as  ,jevons says1      
would1 perhaps1 apply to meteorology1 of
 which nobody  doubts that it is capable
 of being made an exact science4 ,but   
why does  nobody doubt that meteorology 
might become an exact science8 ,because 
we  are convinced that all the data     
which would be needed are expressible   
in precise terms of time and space2 we  
have to do with volumes1 and  masses1   
and weights1 and forces which can be    
exactly measured by lines2  and1 in     
short1 with things which could be       
exactly measured and counted4  ,the data
 are1 at present1 insufficiently known1 
and possibly the  problems which would  
result might be too complex for our     
powers of  calculation4 ,still1 if we   
could once get the data1 we could       
express all  relevant considerations by 
precise figures and numbers4    ,now1 is
 this true of economic science8 ,within 
certain limits1 it is  apparently true3 

,ricardo used mathematical formul1      
though he kept to  arithmetic1 instead  
of algebra4 ,when ,malthus spoke of     
arithmetical and  geometrical ratios1   
the statement1 true or false1 was1 of   
course1  capable of precise numerical   
expression1 so soon as the ratios were  
assigned4 ,so there was the famous      
formula proving a relation between  the 
number of quarters of corn produced by a
 given harvest1 and the  number of      
shillings that would be given for a     
quarter of corn4 ,if1  again1 we took   
the number of marriages corresponding to
 a given price  of corn1 we should      
obtain a formula connecting the number  
of marriages  with the number of        
quarters of corn produced4 ,the utility 
of  statistics1 of course1 depends upon 
the fact that we do empirically         
discover some tolerably constant and    
simple numerical formul4 ,such          
statistical statements are useful1      
indeed1 not only in economical1 but  in 
other inquiries1 which are clearly      

beyond the reach of mathematics4  ,the  
proportion of criminals in a given      
population1 the number of  suicides1 or 
of illegitimate births1 may throw some  
light upon judicial  and political1 and 
even religious or ethical problems4 ,nor
 are such  formul useless simply because
 empirical4 ,the law of gravitation1 for
  example1 is empirical4 ,nobody knows  
the cause of the observed tendency  of  
bodies to gravitate to each other1 and  
therefore no one can say how  far the   
law which represents the tendency must  
be universal4 ,still1 the  fact that1 so
 far as we have observed1 it is         
invariably verified1 and  that          
calculations founded upon it enable us  
to bring a vast variety of  phenomena   
under a single rule1 is quite enough to 
justify astronomical  calculation4      
,if1 therefore1 we could find a         
mathematical formula which was1 as a    
matter of fact1 verifiable in economical
 problems about prices1 and so  forth1  
we should rightly apply to              

mathematicians to help us with their    
methods4 ,but1 not only do we not find  
any such simple relations1 but we  can  
see conclusive reasons for being sure   
that we can never find them4  ,take1 for
 example1 the case of the number of     
marriages under given  conditions4 ,i   
need hardly say that it is impossible   
for the ablest  mathematician to        
calculate whether the individual ,a will
 marry the  individual ,b4 ,but1 by     
taking averages1 and so eliminating     
individual  eccentricities1 he might    
discover that1 in a given country and at
 a  given time1 a rise of prices will   
diminish marriages in certain           
proportion4 ,our knowledge of human     
nature is sufficient to make that       
highly probable4 ,but our knowledge also
 shows that such a change will  act     
differently in different cases3 there   
will be one formula for  ,france1 and   
another for ,england2 one for           
,lancashire1 and another for  ,cornwall2
 one for the rich1 and another for the  

poor2 and both the  total wealth of a   
country and its distribution will affect
 the rule4  ,differences of national    
temperament1 of political and social    
constitution1 of religion and           
ecclesiastical organisation1 will all   
have an effect2 and1 therefore1 a       
formula true here and now must1 in  all 
probability1 fail altogether elsewhere4 
,the formula is1 in the  mathematical   
phrase1 a function of so many           
independent variables1 that  it must be 
complex beyond all conception1 if it    
takes them all into  account2 while it  
must yet be necessarily inaccurate if it
 does not take  them into account4 ,but1
 besides this1 the conditions upon which
 the law  obviously depends are not     
themselves capable of being accurately  
defined1 and still less of being        
numerically stated4 ,ingenious thinkers 
have1 indeed1 tried to apply            
mathematical formul to psychology2 but  
they have not got very far2 and it may1 
,i think1 be assumed1 without  further  

argument1 that while you have to deal   
both with psychological  and            
sociological elements1 with human       
desires1 and with those desires         
modified by social relations1 it is     
impossible to find any data which  can  
be mathematically stated4 ,there is no  
arithmetical measure of the  forces of  
love1 or hunger1 or avarice1 by which   
7among others7 the whole  problem is    
worked out4    ,it seems to me1         
therefore1 that we must accept the      
alternative which is  only mentioned to 
be repudiated by ,jevons1 namely1 that  
,political  ,economy1 if not a          
mathematical science1 must be part of   
sociology4 ,i  should say that it       
clearly is so2 for if we wish to        
investigate the  cause of any of the    
phenomena concerned1 and not simply to  
tabulate from  observations1 we are at  
once concerned with the social structure
 and  with the underlying psychology4   
,the mathematical methods are quite in  
their place when dealing with           

statistics4 ,the rise and fall of       
prices1  and so forth1 can be stated    
precisely in figures2 and1 whenever we  
can  discover some approximation to a   
mathematical law 7as in the cases ,i    
have noticed7 we may work out the       
results4 ,if1 for example1 the price of 
a commodity under certain conditions    
bears a certain relation to its         
scarcity1 we can discover the one fact  
when the other fact is given1           
remembering only that our conclusions   
are not more certain than our           
premisses1 and that the observed law    
depends upon unknown and most           
imperfectly knowable conditions4 ,such  
results1 again1 may be very useful  in  
various ways1 as illustrative of the way
 in which certain laws will  work if    
they hold good2 and1 again1 as testing  
many of our general  theories4 ,if you  
have argued that the price of gold or   
silver cannot be  fixed1 the fact that  
it has been fixed under certain         
conditions will of  course lead to a    

revision of your arguments4 ,but ,i     
cannot help thinking  that it is an     
illusion to suppose that such methods   
can justify the  assertion that the     
science as a whole is mathematical4     
,nothing1  indeed1 is easier than to    
speak as if you had got a mathematical  
theory4  ,let x mean the desire for     
marriage and y the fear of want1 then   
the number of marriages is a function of
 x and y1 and ,i can  express this by   
symbols as well as by ordinary words4   
,but there is no  magic about the use of
 symbols4 ,mathematical inquiries are   
not fruitful  because symbols are used1 
but because the symbols represent       
something  absolutely precise and       
assignable4 ,the highest mathematical   
inquiries  are simply ingenious methods 
of counting2 and till you have got      
something precise to count1 they can    
take you no further4 ,i cannot help     
thinking that this fallacy imposes upon 
some modern reasoners2 that they  assume
 that they have got the data because    

they have put together the  formul which
 would be useful if they had the data2  
and1 in short1 that  you can get more   
out of a mill than you put into it2 or1 
in other words1  that more conclusions  
than really follow can be got out of    
premisses1  simply because you show what
 would follow if you had the required   
knowledge4 ,when the attempt is made1 as
 it seems to me to be made  sometimes1  
to deduce economical laws from some law 
of human desire--as  from the simple    
theorem that equal increments of a      
commodity imply  diminishing amounts of 
utility--,i should reply not only that  
the  numerical data are vaguely defined 
and incapable of being accurately       
stated1 but that the attempt must be    
illusory because the conclusions  are   
not determinable from the premisses4    
,the economic laws do not follow  from  
any simple rule about human desires1    
because they vary according to  the     
varying constitution of human society2  
and any conclusion which you  could     

obtain would be necessarily confined to 
the abstract man of whom  the law is    
supposed to hold good4 ,every such      
method1 therefore1 if it  could be      
successful1 could only lead to          
conclusions about human desire  in      
general1 and could throw no light upon  
the special problems of  political      
economy1 which essentially depend upon  
varying industrial  organisation4    ,i 
will not1 however1 go further4 ,you must
 either1 ,i hold1 limit  ,political     
,economy to the field of statistical    
inquiry1 or admit that1  as a part of   
sociology1 it deals with questions      
altogether beyond the  reach of         
mathematics4 ,like physiology1 it is    
concerned with results  capable of      
numerical statement4 ,the number of     
beats of the pulse1 or  the number of   
degrees of temperature of the body1 are 
important data in  physiological        
problems4 ,they may be counted1 and may 
give rise to  mathematically expressible
 formul4 ,but the fact does not excuse  

us  from considering the physical       
conditions of the organs which are in   
some way correlated with these observed 
phenomena2 and1 in the case of          
,political ,economy1 we have to do with 
the social structure1 which is          
dependent upon forces altogether        
incapable of precise numerical          
estimates4 ,that1 at least1 is my view2 
and ,i shall apply it to  illustrate one
 remark1 which must1 ,i think1 have     
often occurred to us4  ,political       
,economy1 that is1 often appears to have
 a negative rather  than a positive     
value4 ,it is exceedingly potent--so1 at
 least1 ,i  think--in dispersing certain
 popular fallacies2 but it fails when we
  regard it as a science which can give 
us positive concrete laws4 ,the  general
 reason is1 ,i should say1 that although
 its first principles may  be true      
descriptions of facts1 and any denial of
 them1 or any  inconsistent applications
 of them1 may lead us into error1 they  
are yet  far from sufficient            

descriptions4 ,they omit some           
considerations which  are relevant in   
any concrete case2 and the facts which  
they describe  are so complex that1 even
 when we look at them consistently and  
follow  the right clue1 we cannot solve 
the complicated problems which occur4   
,it may be worth while to insist a      
little upon this1 and to apply it to    
one or two peculiar problems4    ,let me
 start from the ordinary analogy4       
,economic inquiry1 ,i have  suggested1  
describes a certain existing mechanism1 
which exists as  really as the physical 
structure described by an anatomist4    
,the  industrial organism has1 of       
course1 many properties of which the    
economist1 as such1 does not take       
account4 ,the labourer has affections1  
and imaginations1 and opinions outside  
of his occupation as labourer2  he      
belongs to a state1 a church1 a family1 
and so forth1 which affect  his whole   
life1 including his industrial life4 ,is
 it therefore  impossible to consider   

the industrial organisation separately8 
,not more  impossible1 ,i should reply1 
than to apply the same method in regard 
to  the individual body4 ,were ,i to    
regard my stomach simply as a bag into  
which ,i put my food1 ,i should learn   
very little about the process of        
digestion4 ,still1 it is such a bag1 and
 it is important to know where  it is1  
and what are its purely mechanical      
relations to other parts of  the body4  
,my arms and legs are levers1 and ,i can
 calculate the pressure  necessary to   
support a weight on the hand1 as though 
my bones and  muscles were made of iron 
and whipcord4 ,i am a piece of          
mechanism1  though ,i am more1 and all  
the principles of simple mechanics apply
 to  my actions1 though they do not1 by 
themselves1 suffice to explain the      
actions4 ,the discovery of the          
circulation of the blood explained1 as  
,i  understand1 my structure as a       
hydraulic apparatus2 and it was of vast 
importance1 even though it told us      

nothing directly of the other  processes
 necessarily involved4 ,in this case1   
therefore1 we have an  instance of the  
way in which a set of perfectly true    
propositions may1  so to speak1 be      
imbedded in a larger theory1 and may be 
of the highest  importance1 though they 
are not by themselves sufficient to     
solve any  concrete problem4 ,we cannot1
 that is1 deduce the physiological      
principles from the mechanical          
principles1 although they are throughout
  implied4 ,but those principles are not
 the less true and useful in the        
detection of fallacies4 ,they may enable
 us to show that an argument  supposes  
facts which do not exist2 or1 perhaps1  
that it is1 at any  rate1 inconsistent  
because it assumes one structure in its 
premisses1  and another in its          
conclusions4    ,i state this by way of 
illustration3 but the value of the      
remark may be  best tested by applying  
it to some economical doctrines4 ,let us
 take1  for example1 the famous argument

 of ,adam ,smith against what he called 
the mercantile theory4 ,that theory1    
according to him1 supposed that the     
wealth of nations1 like the wealth of an
 individual1 was in proportion  to the  
amount of money in their possession4 ,he
 insisted upon the theory  that money1  
as it is useful solely for exchange1    
cannot be1 in itself1  wealth2 that its 
absolute amount is a matter of          
indifference1 because  if every coin in 
existence were halved or doubled1 it    
would discharge  precisely the same     
function2 and he inferred that the      
doctrine which  tested the advantages of
 foreign commerce by the balance of     
trade or  the net return of money1 was  
altogether illusory4 ,his theory is     
expounded in every elementary treatise  
on the subject4 ,it may be urged  that  
it was a mere truism1 and therefore     
useless2 or1 again1 that it  does not   
enable us to deduce a complete theory of
 the functions of  money4 ,in regard to 
the first statement1 ,i should reply    

that1 although  ,smith probably         
misrepresented some of his antagonists1 
the fallacy  which he exposed was not   
only current at the time1 but is still  
constantly cropping up in modern        
controversies4 ,so long as arguments    
are put forward which implicitly involve
 an erroneous1 because                  
self-contradictory1 conception of the   
true functions of money1 it is          
essential to keep in mind these first   
principles1 however obvious they  may be
 in an abstract statement4 ,euclid's    
axioms are useful because  they are     
self-evident2 and so long as people make
 mistakes in geometry1  it will be      
necessary to expose their blundering by 
bringing out the  contradictions        
involved4 ,as ,hobbes observed1 people  
would dispute even  geometrical axioms  
if they had an interest in doing so2    
and1 certainly1  they are ready to      
dispute the plainest doctrines about    
money4 ,the other  remark1 that we      
cannot deduce a complete theory from the

 axiom is1 of  course1 true4 ,thus1 for 
example1 although the doctrine may be   
unimpeachable1 there is a difficulty in 
applying it to the facts4 ,as  gold has 
other uses besides its use as money1 its
 value is not  regulated exclusively by 
the principle assigned2 as other things1
  again1 such as bank-notes and cheques1
 discharge some of the functions  of    
money1 we have all manner of difficult  
problems as to what money  precisely is1
 and how the most elementary principles 
will apply to the  concrete facts4 ,a   
very shrewd economist once remarked1    
listening to a  metaphysical argument1  
,if there had been any money to be made 
out of  it1 we should have solved that  
question in the city long ago4 ,yet1    
there is surely money to be made out of 
a correct theory of the  currency2 and  
people in the city do not seem to have  
arrived at a  complete agreement4 ,in   
fact1 such controversies illustrate the 
extreme  difficulty which arises out of 
the complexity of the phenomena1 even   

where the economic assumption of the    
action of purely money-loving  activity 
is most nearly verified4 ,the moral is1 
,i fancy1 that while  inaccurate        
conclusions are extremely difficult1 we 
can only hope to  approach them by a    
firm grasp of the first principles      
revealed in the  simplest cases4        
,even in such a case1 we have also to   
notice how we have to make  allowance   
for the intrusion of other than purely  
economic cases4 ,the  doctrine just     
noticed is1 of course1 closely connected
 with the theory  of free trade4 ,the   
free trade argument is1 ,i should       
mention1 perfectly  conclusive in a     
negative sense4 ,it demonstrates1 that  
is1 the fallacy  which lurks in the     
popular argument for protection4 ,that  
argument  belongs to the commonest class
 of economic fallacies1 which consists  
in  looking at one particular result    
without considering the necessary       
implications4 ,the great advantage of   
any rational theory is1 that it  forces 

us to look upon the industrial mechanism
 as a whole1 and to  trace out the      
correlative changes involved in any     
particular operation4  ,it disposes of  
the theories which virtually propose to 
improve our  supply of water by pouring 
a cup out of one vessel into another2   
and  such theories have had considerable
 success in economy4 ,so far1 in  short1
 as a protectionist really maintains    
that the advantage consists  in         
accumulating money1 without asking what 
will be the effect upon the  value of   
money1 or that it consists in telling   
people to make for  themselves what they
 could get on better terms by producing 
something  to exchange for it1 his      
arguments may be conclusively shown to  
be  contradictory4 ,such arguments1 at  
least1 cannot be worth considering4     
,but1 to say nothing of cases which may 
be put by an ingenious disputant  in    
which this may not quite apply1 we have 
to consider reasons which  may be       
extra-economical4 ,when it is suggested1

 for example1 that the  economic        
disadvantage is a fair price for        
political independence2 or1  on the     
other hand1 that the stimulus of        
competition is actually good  for the   
trade affected2 or1 again1 that         
protection tends naturally to           
corruption2 we have arguments which1    
good or bad1 are outside the  sphere of 
economics proper4 ,to answer them we    
have to enter the field  of political or
 ethical inquiry1 where we have to take 
leave of  tangible facts and precise    
measures4    ,this is a more prominent  
element as we approach the more human   
side 7if  ,i may so call it7 of         
,political ,economy4 ,consider1 for     
example1 the  doctrine which made so    
profound an impression upon the old     
school--,malthus's theory of population4
 ,it was summed up in the               
famous--though admittedly               
inaccurate--phrase1 that population had 
a  tendency to increase in a geometrical
 ratio1 while the means of  subsistence 

increased only in an arithmetical ratio4
 ,the food available  for each unit     
would therefore diminish as the         
population increased4 ,the  so-called   
law obviously states only a possibility4
 ,it describes a  tendency1 or1 in other
 words1 only describes what would happen
 under  certain1 admittedly variable1   
conditions4 ,it showed how1 in a limited
  area and with the efficiency of       
industry remaining unaltered1 the       
necessary limits upon the numbers of the
 population would come into  play4 ,if1 
then1 the law were taken1 or in so far  
as it was taken1 to  assert that1 in    
point of fact1 the population must      
always be increasing  in civilised      
countries to the stage at which the     
lowest class would be  at starvation    
level1 it was certainly erroneous4      
,there are cases in  which statesmen are
 alarmed by the failure of population to
 show its old  elasticity1 and beginning
 to revert to the view that an increased
 rate  is desirable4 ,it cannot be said 

to be even necessarily true that in all 
cases an increased population implies1  
of necessity1 increased  difficulty of  
support4 ,there are countries which are 
inadequately  peopled1 and where greater
 numbers would be able to support       
themselves  more efficiently because    
they could adopt a more elaborate       
organisation4  ,nor can it be said with 
certainty that some pressure may not1   
within  limits1 be favourable to        
ultimate progress by stimulating the    
energies  of the people4 ,in a purely   
stationary state people might be too    
content  with a certain stage of comfort
 to develop their resources and attain a
  permanently higher stage4 ,whatever   
the importance of such qualifications   
of the principle1 there is a most       
important conclusion to be drawn4       
,malthus or his more rigid followers    
summed up their teaching by one         
practical moral4 ,the essential         
condition of progress was1 according to 
them1 the discouragement of early       

marriages4 ,if1 they held1 people could 
only be persuaded not to produce        
families until they had an adequate     
prospect of supporting their families1  
everything would go right4 ,we  shall   
not1 ,i imagine1 be inclined to dispute 
the proposition1 that a  certain degree 
of prudence and foresight is a quality  
of enormous value2  and that such a     
quality will manifest itself by greater 
caution in  taking the most important   
step in life4 ,what such reasoners do   
not  appear to have appreciated was1 the
 immense complexity and difficulty of   
the demand which they were making4 ,they
 seem to have fancied that it was       
possible simply to add another          
clause--the clause ,thou shalt not      
marry--to the accepted code of morals2  
and that1 as soon as the evil           
consequences of the condemned behaviour 
were understood1--properly  expounded1  
for example1 in little manuals for the  
use of school  children1--obedience to  
the new regulation would spontaneously  

follow4  ,what they did not see1 or did 
not fully appreciate1 was the enormous  
series of other things--religious1      
moral1 and intellectual--which are      
necessarily implied in altering the     
relation of the strongest human  passion
 to the general constitution1 and the   
impossibility of bringing  home such an 
alteration1 either by an act of         
legislation or by pointing  out the     
bearing of a particular set of          
prudential considerations4  ,political  
,economy might be a very good thing2 but
 its expositors were  certainly too apt 
to think that it could by itself at once
 become a new  gospel for mankind4      
,should we then infer from such         
criticisms that the  doctrine of        
,malthus was false1 or was of no        
importance8 ,nothing would be  further  
from my opinion4 ,i hold1 on the        
contrary1 that it was of the  highest   
importance1 because it drew attention to
 a fact1 the recognition  of which was  
essential to all sound reasoning on     

social questions4 ,the  fact is1 that   
population is not to be treated as a    
fixed quantity1 but  as capable of rapid
 expansion2 and that this elasticity may
 at any  moment require consideration1  
and does in fact give the explanation of
  many important phenomena4 ,the main   
fact which gave importance to           
,malthus's writings was the rapid and   
enormous increase of pauperism  during  
the first quarter of this century4 ,the 
charitable and sentimental  writers of  
the day were alarmed1 but proposed to   
meet the evil by a  reckless increase of
 charity1 either of the official or the 
private  variety4 ,pitt1 we know1       
declared 7though he qualified the       
statement7  that to be the father of a  
large family should be a source of      
honour1  not of obloquy2 and the        
measures adopted under the influence of 
such  notions did in fact tend to       
diminish all sense of responsibility1   
encouraged people to rely upon the      
parish for the support of their         

children1 and brought about a state of  
things which alarmed all  intelligent   
observers4 ,the greatest check to the   
evil was given by the  new ,poor-law1   
adopted under the influence of the      
principles advocated by  ,malthus and   
his friends4 ,his achievement1 then1 was
 not that he laid  down any absolutely  
correct scientific truth1 or even said  
anything  which had not been more or    
less said by many judicious people      
before his  time2 but that he encouraged
 the application of a more systematic   
method  of reasoning upon the great     
problem of the time4 ,instead of simply 
giving way to the first kindly impulse1 
abolishing a hardship here and          
distributing alms elsewhere1 he         
substantially argued that society formed
  a complex organism1 whose diseases    
should be considered physiologically1   
their causes explained1 and the         
appropriate remedies considered in all  
their bearings4 ,we must not ask simply 
whether we were giving a loaf to  this  

or that starving man1 or indulge in     
priori reasoning as to the  right of    
every human being to be supported by    
others2 but treat the  question as a    
physician should treat a disease1 and   
consider whether1 on  the whole1 the new
 regulations would increase or diminish 
the causes of  the existing evils4 ,he  
did not1 therefore1 so much proclaim a  
new truth1  as induce reformers to place
 themselves at a new and a more rational
  point of view4 ,the so-called law of  
population which he announced might  be 
in various ways inaccurate1 but the     
announcement made it necessary  for     
rational thinkers to take constantly    
into account considerations  which are  
essential in any satisfactory treatment 
of the great problems4  ,if it were     
right to consider pauperism as a gulf of
 fixed dimensions1 we  might hope to    
fill it by simply taking a sufficient   
quantity of wealth  from the richer     
classes4 ,if1 as ,malthus urged1 this   
process had a  tendency to enlarge the  

dimensions of the gulf itself1 it was   
obvious  that the whole problem required
 a more elaborate treatment4 ,by        
impressing people with this truth1 and  
by showing how1 in a great  variety of  
cases1 the elasticity of the population 
was a most important  factor in         
determining the condition of the people1
 ,malthus did a great  service1 and     
introduced a more systematic and        
scientific method of  discussing the    
immensely important questions involved4 
,i will very briefly try to indicate one
 further application of economic        
principles4 ,a critical point in the    
modern development of the study was     
marked by ,mill's abandonment of the    
so-called wage fund theory4 ,that       
doctrine is now generally mentioned with
 contempt1 as the most  conspicuous     
instance of an entirely exploded theory4
 ,it is often said  that it is either a 
falsity1 or a barren truism4 ,i am not  
about to  argue the point1 observing    
only that some very eminent ,economists 

consider that it was rather inadequate  
than fallacious2 and that to me  it has 
always seemed that the theory which has 
really been confuted is  not so much a  
theory which was ever actually held by  
,economists1 as a  formula into which   
they blundered when they tried to give a
  quasi-scientific definition of their  
meaning4 ,it is common enough for       
people to argue sensibly1 when the      
explicit statements of their  argument  
may be altogether erroneous4 ,at any    
rate1 ,i think it has been  a misfortune
 that a good phrase has been            
discredited2 and that ,mill's           
assailants1 in exposing the errors of   
that particular theory of a wage  fund1 
seemed to imply that the whole          
conception of a wage fund was a         
mistake4 ,for the result has been1 that 
the popular mind seems to regard  the   
amount spent in wages as an arbitrary   
quantity2 as something which1  as       
,malthus put it1 might be fixed at      
pleasure by her ,majesty's justices  of 

the peace4 ,because the law was         
inaccurately stated1 it is assumed  that
 there is no law at all1 and that the   
share of the labourers in the  total    
product of industry might be fixed      
without reference to the  effect of a   
change upon the general organisation4   
,now1 if the wage fund  means the share 
which1 under existing circumstances1    
actually goes to  the class dependent   
upon wages1 it is of the highest        
importance to  discover how that share  
is actually determined2 and it does not 
even  follow that a doctrine which is in
 some sense a truism may not be a       
highly important doctrine4 ,one of the  
ablest of the old ,economists1  ,nassan 
,senior1 after laying down his version  
of the theory1 observes  that it is so  
nearly self-evident that if ,political  
,economy were a  new science1 it might  
be taken for granted4 ,but he proceeds  
to  enumerate seven different opinions1 
some of them held by many people1  and  
others by writers of authority1 with    

which it is inconsistent4 ,and1  without
 following his arguments1 this statement
 suggests what ,i take to  be a really  
relevant defence of his reasons4 ,at the
 time when the  theory was first        
formulated1 there were many current     
doctrines which  were                   
self-contradictory1 and which could1    
therefore1 best be met by the  assertion
 of a truism4 ,when the peace of #ahae  
brought distress instead  of plenty1    
some people1 such as ,southey1 thought  
it a sufficient  explanation to say that
 the manufacturer had lost his best     
customer1  because the ,government      
wanted fewer guns and less powder4 ,they
 chose to  overlook the obvious fact    
that a customer who pays for his goods  
by  taking money out of the pockets of  
the seller1 is not an unmixed  blessing4
 ,then1 there was the theory of general 
gluts1 and of what is  still denounced  
as over-production4 ,the best cure for  
commercial  distress would be1 as one   
disputant asserted1 to burn all the     

goods in  our warehouses4 ,it was       
necessary to point out that this theory 
7when  stated in superficial terms7     
regarded superabundance of wealth as the
  cause of universal poverty4 ,another  
common theory was the evil effect  of   
manufacturers in displacing work4 ,the  
excellent ,robert ,owen stated  it as an
 appalling fact1 that the cotton        
manufacture supplanted the  labour of a 
hundred 7perhaps it was two hundred7    
millions of men4 ,he  seems to assume   
that1 if the machinery had not been     
there1 there would  still have been     
wages for the hundred millions4 ,the    
curious confusion1  indeed1 which leads 
us to speak of men wanting work1 when   
what we  really mean is that they want  
wages1 shows the tenacity of an old     
fallacy4 ,mandeville argued long ago    
that the fire of ,london was a          
blessing1 because it set at work so many
 carpenters1 plumbers1 and  glaziers4   
,the ,protestant ,reformation had done  
less good than the  invention of hooped 

petticoats1 which had provided          
employment for so  many milliners4 ,i   
shall not insult you by exposing        
fallacies2 and yet1  so long as they    
survive1 they have to be met by truisms4
 ,while people  are proposing to        
lengthen their blankets by cutting off  
one end to sew  upon the other1 one has 
to point out that the total length      
remains  constant4 ,now1 ,i fancy that1 
in point of fact1 these fallacies are   
often to be found in modern times4 ,i   
read1 the other day1 in the  papers1 an 
argument1 adduced by some advocate1 on  
behalf of the ,eight  ,hours ,bill4 ,he 
wished1 he said1 to make labour dear1   
and would  therefore make it scarce4    
,this apparently leads to the conclusion
 that  the less people work the more    
they will get1 which ,i take to be a    
fallacy4 ,so1 to mention nothing else1  
it is still apparently a common         
argument in favour of protection in     
,america1 that the native labourer      
requires to be supported against the    

pauperised labour of ,europe4           
,americans in general are to be made    
richer by paying higher prices1 and  by 
being forced to produce commodities     
which they could get with less  labour  
employed on the production of other     
things in exchange4 ,i will  not go     
further2 for ,i think that no one who   
reads the common arguments  can be in   
want of sufficient illustrations of     
popular fallacies4 ,this1  ,i say1 is   
some justification for dwelling upon the
 contrary truisms4 ,i  admit1 indeed1   
that even these fallacies may apply to  
particular cases  in which they may     
represent partial truths2 and ,i also   
agree that1 as  sometimes stated1 the   
wage fund theory was not only a truism1 
but a  fruitless truism4 ,it was1       
however1 as ,i believe1 an attempt to   
generalise a very pertinent and         
important doctrine1 as to the way in    
which the actual competition in which   
labourers and employers are  involved1  
actually operates4 ,if so1 it requires  

rather modification  than indiscriminate
 denunciation2 and it is1 ,i believe1 so
 treated by  the best modern            
,economists4    ,i consider1 then1 that 
the ,economists were virtually          
attempting to  describe systematically  
the main relations of the industrial    
mechanism4  ,they showed what were the  
main functions which it1 in fact1       
discharges4  ,their theory was          
sufficient to expose many errors1       
especially those  which arise from      
looking solely at one part of a complex 
process1 and  neglecting the implied    
reactions4 ,it enabled them to point out
 the  inconsistencies and actual        
contradictions involved in many popular 
arguments1 which are still very far from
 being destroyed4 ,their main           
error--apart from any particular logical
 slips--was1 namely1 that when  they had
 laid down certain principles which     
belong properly to the  prolegomena of  
the science1 and which are very useful  
when regarded as  providing logical     

tests of valid reasoning1 they imagined 
that they had  done a great deal more1  
and that the desired science was        
actually  constituted4 ,they laid down  
three or four primary axioms1 such as   
the  doctrine that men desire wealth1   
and fancied that the whole theory  could
 be deduced from them4 ,this1 if what ,i
 have said be true1 was  really to      
misunderstand what they were really     
doing4 ,it was to suppose  that you     
could obtain a description of social    
phenomena without  examining the actual 
structure of society2 and was as        
erroneous as to  suppose that you could 
deduce physiological truths from a few  
general  propositions about the         
mechanical relations of the skeleton4   
,such  criticisms have been made by the 
historical school of ,economists2 and   
,i1 at least1 can fully accept their    
general view4 ,i quite agree that  the  
old assumptions of the older school were
 frequently unjustifiable2  nor can ,i  
deny that they laid them down with a    

tone of superlative  dogmatism1 which   
was apt to be very offensive1 and which 
was not  justified by their position4   
,moreover1 ,i entirely agree that the   
progress of economic science1 and of all
 other moral sciences1 requires  a      
historical basis2 and that we should    
make a very great blunder if we  thought
 that the creation of an economic man   
would justify us in  dispensing with an 
investigation of concrete facts1 both of
 the present  day and of earlier stages 
of industrial evolution4 ,but to this   
there is  an obvious qualification4     
,what do we mean by investigating facts8
 ,it  seems to be a very simple rule1   
but it leads us at once to great        
difficulties4 ,so1 as ,mill and later   
writers have very rightly asked1  how   
are we to settle even the most obvious  
questions in inquiries  where1 for      
obvious reasons1 we cannot make         
experiments1 and where we  have not such
 a set of facts as would spontaneously  
give us the truths  which we might seek 

by experiment8 ,take1 as ,mill          
suggested1 such a  question as free     
trade4 ,we cannot get two countries     
alike in all else1  and differing only  
in respect to their adoption or         
rejection of a  protective tariff4      
,anything like a thoroughgoing system of
 free trade  has been tried in ,england 
alone2 and the commercial prosperity of 
the  country since its adoption has been
 affected by innumerable conditions1  so
 that it is altogether impossible to    
isolate the results which are to  be    
attributed to the negative condition of 
the absence of protection4  ,briefly1   
the result is that the phenomena with   
which we have to deal  are so complex1  
and our power of arranging them so as to
 unravel the  complexity is so limited1 
that the direct method of observation   
breaks  down altogether4 ,mill confessed
 the necessity of applying a different  
method1 which he described with great   
ability1 and which substantially        
amounts to the method of the older      

,economists4 ,if1 with some writers of  
the historical school1 we admit the     
objections which apply to this  method1 
we seem to be reduced to a hopeless     
state of uncertainty4 ,a  treatise on   
,political ,economy becomes nothing but 
a miscellaneous  collection of facts1   
with no definite clue or uniform method 
of  reasoning4 ,i must beg1 in          
conclusion1 to indicate what1 so far as 
,i can  guess1 seems to be the view     
suggested in presence of this           
difficulty4    ,if ,i am asked whether  
,political ,economy1 understood1 for    
example1 as  ,mill understood it1 is to 
be regarded as a science1 ,i should have
 to  admit that ,i could not simply     
reply1 ,yes4 ,to say nothing of any     
errors  in his logic1 ,i should say that
 ,i do not believe that it gives us     
sufficient guidance even in regard to   
economic phenomena4 ,we could not1  that
 is1 deduce from the laws accepted by   
,economists the necessary  working of   
any given measure--say1 the effect of   

protection or free  trade1 or1 still    
more1 the making of a poor-law system4  
,such problems  involve elements of     
which the ,economist1 purely as an      
,economist1 is an  incompetent judge2   
and the further we get from those       
questions in which  purely economical   
considerations are dominant1 towards    
those in which  other factors become    
relevant1--from questions as to         
currency1 for  example1 to questions as 
to the relations of capitalists and     
labourers1--the greater the inadequacy  
of our methods4 ,but ,i also hold  that 
,political ,economists may rightly claim
 a certain scientific  character for    
their speculations4 ,if their ultimate  
aim is to frame a  science of economics 
which shall be part of the science--not 
yet  constituted--of sociology1 then ,i 
should say that what they have really   
done--so far as they have reasoned      
accurately--has been to frame an        
essential part of the prolegomena to    
such a science4 ,the laws which  they   

have tried to formulate are not laws    
which1 even if established1  would      
enable us to predict the results of any 
given action2 but they  are laws which  
would have to be taken into account in  
attempting any  such prediction4 ,and   
this is so1 ,i think1 because the laws  
are  descriptions--within limits        
accurate descriptions--of actually      
existing  facts as to the social        
mechanism4 ,they are not mere abstract  
hypotheses1 in the sense sometimes      
attached to that phrase2 but  accounts  
of the plan upon which the industrial   
arrangements of  civilised countries    
are1 as a matter of fact1 constructed4  
,such a  classification and systematic  
account of facts is1 as ,i should       
suggest1  absolutely necessary for any  
sound historical method4 ,facts are not 
simply things lying about1 which anybody
 can pick up and describe for  the mere 
pains of collecting them4 ,we cannot    
even see a fact without  reflection and 
observation and judgment2 and to arrange

 them in an  order which shall be both  
systematic and fruitful1 to look at them
 from  that point of view in which we   
can detect the general underlying       
principles1 is1 in all cases1 an        
essential process before we can begin   
to apply a truly historical method4     
,anything1 it is said1 may be proved  by
 facts2 and that is painfully true until
 we have the right method of  what has  
been called colligating facts4 ,the     
,catholic and the  ,protestant1 the     
,conservative and the ,radical1 the     
,individualist and the  ,socialist1 have
 equal facility in proving their own    
doctrines with  arguments1 which        
habitually begin1 ,all history shows4   
,printers should  be instructed always  
to strike out that phrase as an erratum2
 and to  substitute1 ,i choose to take  
for granted4 ,in order to judge between 
them we have to come to some conclusion 
as to what is the right method  of      
conceiving of history1 and probably to  
try many methods before  reaching that  

which arranges the shifting and         
complicated chaos of  phenomena in      
something like an intelligible order4 ,a
 first step and a  necessary basis1 as  
,i believe1 for all the more complex    
inquiries will  have to be found by     
disentangling the various orders of laws
 7if ,i may  so speak71 and considering 
by themselves those laws of industrial  
growth which are nearest to the physical
 sciences in certain respects1  and     
which1 within certain limits1 can be    
considered apart1 inasmuch as  they     
represent the working of forces which   
are comparatively  independent of forces
 of a higher order4 ,what ,i should say 
for  ,political ,economists is that they
 have done a good deal in this          
direction2 that they have explained1    
and1 ,i suppose1 with considerable      
accuracy1 what is the actual nature of  
the industrial mechanism2 that  they    
have explained fairly its working in    
certain cases where the  economic are   
practically also the sole or dominant   

motives2 and that  they have thus laid  
down certain truths which require       
attention even  when we take into       
account the play of other more complex  
and1 as we  generally say1 higher       
motives4 ,we may indeed hope and believe
 that  society will ultimately be       
constituted upon a different system2 and
  that for the organisation which has   
spontaneously and unconsciously         
developed itself1 another will be       
substituted which will correspond  more 
closely to some principles of justice1  
and give freer scope for  the full      
development of the human faculties4     
,that is a very large  question3 ,i only
 say that1 in any case1 all genuine     
progress consists  in a development of  
institutions already existing1 and      
therefore that a  full understanding of 
the working of the present system is    
essential to  a rational consideration  
of possible improvements4 ,the          
,socialist may  look forward to a       
time--let us hope that it may come      

soon6--when nobody  will have any       
grievances4 ,but his schemes will be the
 better adapted  for the realisation of 
his hopes in proportion as he has fully 
understood what is the part played by   
each factor of the existing  system2    
what is its function1 and how that      
function may be more  efficiently       
discharged by any substitute4 ,only upon
 that condition can  he avoid the common
 error of inventing some scheme which is
 in  sociology what schemes for         
perpetual motion are in mechanics2 plans
 for  making everything go right by     
condemning some existing portion of the 
system without fully understanding how  
it has come into existence1 and  what is
 the part which it plays in the whole4  
,i think myself that a  study of the    
good old orthodox system of ,political  
,economy is useful in  this sense1 even 
where it is wrong2 because at least it  
does give a  system1 and therefore      
forces its opponents to present an      
alternative  system1 instead of simply  

cutting a hole in the shoe when it      
pinches1  or striking out the driving   
wheel because it happens to creak       
unpleasantly4 ,and ,i think so the more 
because ,i cannot but observe that      
whenever a real economic question       
presents itself1 it has to be argued  on
 pretty much the old principles1 unless 
we take the heroic method of  discarding
 argument altogether4 ,i should be the  
last to deny that the  old ,political   
,economy requires careful revision and  
modification1 and  equally slow to deny 
that the limits of its applicability    
require to be  carefully defined4 ,but1 
with these qualifications1 ,i say1 with 
equal  conviction1 that it does lay down
 principles which require study and     
consideration1 for the simple reason    
that they assert the existence of  facts
 which are relevant and important in all
 the most vitally  interesting problems 
of to-day4          ,,the ,,morality    
,,of ,,competition4      ,when it has   
occurred to me to say--as ,i have       

occasionally said--that1  to my mind1   
the whole truth lies neither with the   
individualist nor  with his antagonist1 
my friends have often assured me that ,i
 was  illogical4 ,of two contradictory  
principles1 they say1 you must take     
one4 ,there are cases1 ,i admit1 in     
which this remark applies4 ,it is  true1
 or it is not true1 that two and two    
make four4 ,we cannot1 in  arithmetic1  
adopt ,sir ,roger de ,coverley's        
conciliatory view1 that there  is much  
to be said on both sides4 ,but this     
logical rule supposes that1  in point of
 fact1 the two principles apply to the  
same case1 and are  mutually exclusive4 
,i also think that the habit of taking  
for granted  that social problems are   
reducible to such an alternative1 is the
  source of innumerable fallacies4 ,i   
hold that1 as a rule1 any absolute      
solution of such problems is impossible2
 and that a man who boasts of  being    
logical1 is generally announcing his    
deliberate intention to be  one-sided4  

,he is confusing the undeniable canon   
that of two  contradictory propositions 
one must be true1 with the assumption   
that  two propositions are really       
contradictory4 ,the apparent            
contradiction  may be illusory4         
,society1 says the individualist1 is    
made up of all its  members4 ,certainly3
 if all ,englishmen died1 there would be
 no ,english  race4 ,but it does not    
follow that every individual ,englishman
 is not  also the product of the race4  
,society1 says the ,socialist1 is an    
organic whole4 ,i quite admit the fact2 
but it does not follow that1 as  a      
whole1 it has any qualities or aims     
independent of the qualities and  aims  
of the constituent parts4               
,metaphysicians have amused themselves1 
in all ages1 with the puzzle about the  
many and the one4 ,perhaps they  may    
find contradictions in the statement    
that a human society is both  one and   
many2 a unit and yet complex2 but ,i am 
content to assume that  unless we admit 

the fact1 we shall get a very little way
 in sociology4    ,society1 we say1 is  
an organism4 ,that implies that every   
part of a  society is dependent upon the
 other parts1 and that although1 for    
purposes of argument1 we may find it    
convenient to assume that certain       
elements remain fixed while others vary1
 we must always remember that  this is  
an assumption which1 in the long run1   
never precisely  corresponds to the     
facts4 ,we may1 for example1 in         
economical questions1  attend simply to 
the play of the ordinary industrial     
machinery1 without  taking into account 
the fact that the industrial machinery  
is  conditioned by the political and    
ecclesiastical constitution1 by the     
whole social order1 and1 therefore1 by  
the acceptance of corresponding         
ethical1 or philosophical or scientific 
creeds4 ,the method is  justifiable so  
long as we remember that we are using a 
logical  artifice2 but we blunder if we 
take our hypothesis for a full statement

  of the actual facts4 ,we are then     
tempted1 and it is1 perhaps1 the        
commonest of all sources of error in    
such inquiries1 to assume that          
conditions are absolute which are really
 contingent2 or1 to attend only  to the 
action1 without noticing the inevitable 
reactions of the whole  system of       
institutions4 ,and ,i would suggest1    
that from this follows a  very important
 lesson in such inquiries4 ,to say that 
this or that part  of a system is bad1  
is to say1 by implication1 that some    
better  arrangement is possible         
consistently with our primary           
assumptions4 ,in  other words1 we cannot
 rationally propose simply to cut out   
one part of  a machine1 dead or living1 
without considering the effect of the   
omission upon all the other dependent   
parts4 ,the whole system is  necessarily
 altered4 ,what1 we must therefore ask1 
is the tacit  implication as well as    
what is the immediate purpose of a      
change8 ,may  not the bad effect be a   

necessary part of the system to which we
 also  owe the good2 or necessary under 
some conditions8 ,it is always1         
therefore1 a relevant question1 what is 
the suggested alternative8 ,we  can then
 judge whether the removal of a         
particular evil is or is not to  be     
produced at a greater cost than it is   
worth2 whether it would be a  process1  
say1 of really curing a smoky chimney or
 of stopping the  chimney altogether1   
and so abolishing not only the smoke but
 the fire4    ,i propose to apply this  
to the question of competition4         
,competition  is frequently denounced as
 the source of social evils4 ,the       
complaint is  far from a new one4 ,i    
might take for my text a passage from   
,j4 ,s4  ,mill's famous chapter on the  
probable future of the labouring        
classes4  ,mill1 after saying that he   
agrees with the ,socialists in their    
practical aims1 declares his utter      
dissent from their declamations  against
 competition4 ,they forget1 he says1    

that where competition is  not1 monopoly
 is2 and that monopoly1 in all its      
forms1 is the taxation  of the          
industrious for the support of          
indolence1 if not of plunder4  ,that    
suggests my question3 ,if competition is
 bad1 what is good8 ,what is  the       
alternative to competition8 ,is it1 as  
,mill says1 monopoly1 or is  any third  
choice possible8 ,if it is monopoly1 do 
you defend monopoly1  or only monopoly  
in some special cases8 ,i opened1 not   
long ago1 an old  book of caricatures1  
in which the revolutionary leader is    
carrying a  banner with the double      
inscription1 ,no monopoly6 ,no          
competition6 ,the  implied              
challenge--how can you abolish          
both8--seemed to me to require a  plain 
answer4 ,directly afterwards ,i then    
took up the newspaper1 and  read the    
report of an address upon the prize-day 
of a school4 ,the  speaker dwelt in the 
usual terms upon the remorseless and    
crushing  competition of the present    

day1 which he mentioned as an incitement
 to  every boy to get a good training   
for the struggle4 ,the moral was        
excellent2 but it seemed to me curious  
that the speaker should be  denouncing  
competition in the very same breath with
 proofs of its  influence in encouraging
 education4 ,when ,i was a lad1 a clever
 boy and  a stupid boy had an equal     
chance of getting an appointment to a   
public  office4 ,the merit which won a  
place might be relationship to a public 
official1 or perhaps to a gentleman who 
had an influence in the  constituency of
 the official4 ,the system was a partial
 survival of the  good old days in      
which1 according to ,sam ,weller1 the   
young nobleman got  a position because  
his mother's uncle's wife's grandfather 
had once  lighted the ,king's pipe4 ,the
 nobleman1 ,i need hardly add1          
considered  this as an illustration of  
the pleasant belief1 ,whatever is1 is   
right4 ,as we had ceased to accept that 
opinion in politics1 offices  were soon 

afterwards thrown open to competition1  
with the general  impression that we    
were doing justice and opening a career 
to merit4  ,that the resulting system   
has grave defects is1 ,i think1 quite   
undeniable2 but so far as it has        
succeeded in determining that the men   
should be selected for public duty1 for 
their fitness1 and for nothing  else1 it
 is surely a step in advance which no   
one would now propose to  retrace4 ,and 
yet it was simply a substitution of     
competition for  monopoly4 ,as it comes 
into wider operation1 some of us begin  
to cry out  against competition4 ,the   
respectable citizen asks1 ,what are we  
to do  with our boys8 ,the obvious reply
 is1 that he really means1 ,what are we 
to do with our fools8 ,a clever lad can 
now get on by his cleverness2  and of   
course those who are not clever are     
thrust aside4 ,that is a  misfortune1   
perhaps1 for them2 but we can hardly    
regard it as a  misfortune for the      
country4 ,and clearly1 too1 pressure of 

this kind is  likely to increase4 ,we   
have come to believe that it is a main  
duty of  the nation to provide general  
education4 ,when the excellent ,miss    
,hannah  ,more began to spread village  
schools1 she protested warmly that she  
would not teach children anything which 
would tend to make the poor             
discontented with their station4 ,they  
must learn to read the ,bible1 but  she 
hoped that they would stop short of such
 knowledge as would enable  them to read
 ,tom ,paine4 ,now1 ,hannah ,more       
deserves our gratitude for her  share in
 setting the ball rolling2 but it has   
rolled far beyond the  limits she would 
have prescribed4 ,we now desire not only
 that every  child in the country should
 be able to acquire the elements of     
learning  at least2 but1 further1 we    
hope that ladders may be provided by    
which  every promising child may be able
 to climb beyond the elements1 and to   
acquire the fullest culture of which his
 faculties are capable4 ,there  is not  

only no credit at the present day in    
wishing so much1 but it is              
discreditable not to do what lies in    
one's power to further its              
accomplishment4 ,but1 then1 is not that 
to increase enormously the field  of    
competition8 ,i1 for example1 am a      
literary person1 after a fashion2  ,i   
have1 that is1 done something to earn a 
living by my pen4 ,i had the  advantage 
at starting of belonging to the small   
class which was well  enough off to send
 its children to the best schools and   
universities4  ,that is to say1 ,i was  
one of the minority which had virtually 
a  monopoly of education1 and but for   
that circumstance ,i should in all      
probability have taken to some possibly 
more honest1 but perhaps even  worse    
paid1 occupation4 ,every extension of   
the margin of education1  everything    
which diffuses knowledge and            
intellectual training through a  wider  
circle1 must increase the competition   
among authors4 ,if every man  with      

brains1 whether born in a palace or a   
cottage is to have a chance  of making  
the best of them1 the capacity for      
authorship1 and therefore  the number of
 competitors1 will be enormously spread4
 ,it may also1 we  will hope1 increase  
the demand for their work4 ,the same    
remark applies  to every profession for 
which intellectual culture is a         
qualification4  ,do we regret the fact8 
,would we sentence three-quarters of the
 nation  to remain stupid1 in order that
 the fools in the remaining quarter may 
have a better chance8 ,that would be    
contrary to every democratic  instinct1 
to the highest as well as the lowest4   
,but if ,i say1 every  office and every 
profession shall be open to every man2  
success in it  shall depend upon his    
abilities and merits2 and1 further1     
every child  in the country shall have  
the opportunity of acquiring the        
necessary  qualifications1 what is that 
but to accept and to stimulate the      
spirit  of competition8 ,what1 ,i ask1  

is the alternative8 ,should people be   
appointed by interest8 ,or is nobody to 
be anxious for official or  professional
 or literary or commercial success1 but 
only to develop his  powers from a sense
 of duty1 and wait till some infallible 
observer  comes round and says1 ,friend1
 take this position1 which you deserve8 
,somehow ,i do not think that last      
scheme practicable at present4 ,but1    
even in that case1 ,i do not see how the
 merits of any man are to be  tested    
without enabling him to prove by        
experiment that he is the most          
meritorious person2 and1 if that be     
admitted1 is not every step in          
promoting education1 in equalising1     
therefore1 the position from which  men 
start for the race1 a direct            
encouragement to competition8           
,carlyle was fond of saying that        
,napoleon's great message to mankind was
  the declaration that careers should be
 open to talent1 or the tools  given to 
him who could use them4 ,surely that was

 a sound principle2 and  one which1 so  
far as ,i can see1 cannot be applied    
without stimulating  competition4 ,the  
doctrine1 indeed1 is unpalatable to many
 ,socialists4  ,to me1 it seems to be   
one to which only the cowardly and the  
indolent  can object in principle4 ,will
 not a society be the better off1 in    
which  every man is set to work upon the
 tasks for which he is most fitted8 ,if 
we allowed our teaching and our thinking
 to be done by blockheads2 our  hard    
labour to be done by men whose muscles  
were less developed than  their brains2 
made our soldiers out of our cowards1   
and our sailors out  of the             
sea-sick1--should we be better off8 ,it 
seems1 certainly1 to me1  that whatever 
may be the best constitution of society1
 one mark of it  will be the tendency to
 distribute all social functions        
according to  the fitness of the agents2
 to place trust where trust is          
justifiable1  and to give the fullest   
scope for every proved ability1         

intellectual1  moral1 and physical4 ,of 
course1 such approximation to this      
result1 as  we can observe in the       
present order of things1 is very        
imperfect4 ,many  of the most obvious   
evils in the particular system of       
competition now  adopted1 may be summed 
up in the statement1 that the tests     
according to  which success is awarded1 
are not so contrived as to secure the   
success  of the best competitors4 ,some 
of them1 for example1 are calculated to 
give an advantage to the superficial and
 the showy4 ,but that is to say  that   
they are incompatible with the true     
principle which they were  intended to  
embody2 and that we should reform our   
method1 not in the  direction of        
limiting competition1 but in the        
direction of so framing  our system that
 it may be a genuine application of     
,carlyle's doctrine4  ,in other words1  
in all the professions for which        
intellectual  excellence is required1   
the conditions should be such as to give

 the  best man the best chance1 as far  
as human arrangements can secure that   
object4 ,what other rule can be         
suggested8 ,competition1 in this sense1 
means the preservation of the very      
atmosphere which is necessary to        
health2 and to denounce it is either to 
confirm the most selfish and  retrograde
 principles1 or to denounce something   
which is only called  competition by a  
confusion of ideas4 ,how easy such a    
confusion may be1  is obvious when we   
look at the ordinary language about     
industrial  competition4 ,we are told   
that wages are kept down by competition4
 ,to  this ,mill replied in the passage 
,i have quoted1 and1 upon his own       
theory1 at any rate1 replied with       
perfect justice1 that they were also    
kept up by competition4 ,the common     
language upon the subject is merely  one
 instance of the fallacies into which   
men fall when they personify  an        
abstraction4 ,competition becomes a kind
 of malevolent and  supernatural being1 

to whose powers no conceivable limits   
are assigned4  ,it is supposed to       
account for any amount of degradation4  
,yet if1 by  multiplying their numbers1 
workmen increase supply1 and so lower   
the  price of labour1 it follows1       
conversely1 by the very same reasoning1 
that if they refused to multiply1 they  
would diminish the supply and  raise the
 price4 ,the force1 by its very nature1 
operates as certainly  in one direction 
as in the other4 ,if1 again1 there is   
competition among  workmen1 there is    
competition among capitalists4 ,in every
 strike1 of  course1 workmen apply the  
principle1 and sometimes apply it very  
effectually1 in the attempt to raise    
their wages4 ,it was often argued1      
indeed1 that in this struggle1 the      
employer possessed advantages partly    
due to his power of forming tacit       
combinations4 ,the farmers in a  parish1
 or the manufacturers in a business1    
were pledged to each other  not to raise
 the rate of wages4 ,if that be so1 you 

again complain1 not  of competition1 but
 of the want of competition2 and you    
agree that the  labourer will benefit1  
as in fact1 ,i take it1 he has          
undoubtedly  benefited1 by freer        
competition among capitalists1 or by the
 greater  power of removing his own     
labour to better markets4 ,in such      
cases1 the  very meaning of the         
complaint is not that there is          
competition1 but  that the competition  
is so arranged as to give an unfair     
advantage to  one side4 ,and a similar  
misunderstanding is obviously implied in
 other  cases4 ,the ,australian or      
,american workman fears that his wages  
will be  lowered by the competition of  
the ,chinese2 and the ,englishman       
protests  against the competition of    
pauper aliens4 ,let us assume that he is
  right in believing that such          
competition will tend to lower his      
wages1  whatever the moral to be drawn  
from the fact4 ,briefly1 denunciations  
of  competition in this sense are really

 complaints that we do not  exclude the 
,chinese immigrant and therefore give a 
monopoly to the  native labourer4 ,that 
may be a good thing for him1 and if it  
be not a  good thing for the ,chinaman  
who is excluded from the field1 we      
perhaps  do not care very much about the
 results to ,china4 ,we are so much     
better  than the heathen that we need   
not bother about their interests4 ,but1 
of  course1 the ,english workman1 when  
he complains of the intensity of        
competition1 does not propose to adopt  
the analogous remedy of giving a        
monopoly to one section of our own      
population4 ,the ,english pauper is     
here2 we do not want to suppress him1   
but only to suppress his  pauperism2 and
 he certainly cannot be excluded from   
any share in the  fund devoted to the   
support of labour4 ,the evil1 therefore1
 of which we  complain is primarily the 
inadequacy of the support provided1     
not1--though that may also be complained
 of1--the undesirable method by  which  

those funds are distributed4 ,in other  
words1 the complaint may so  far be     
taken to mean that there are too many   
competitors1 not that1  given the       
competitors1 their shares are determined
 by competition1  instead of being      
determined by monopoly or by some other 
principle4    ,we have therefore to     
inquire whether any principle can be    
suggested  which will effect the desired
 end1 and which will yet really exclude 
competition4 ,the popular suggestion is 
that the remedy lies in  suppressing    
competition by equalising the prizes4   
,if no prizes are to  be won1 there will
 so far be less reason for competing4   
,enough may be  provided for all by     
simply taking something from those who  
have too  much4 ,now1 ,i may probably   
assume that we all agree in approving   
the  contemplated end--a greater        
equality of wealth1 and especially an   
elevation of the lower classes to a     
higher position in the scale of         
comfort4 ,every social reformer1        

whatever his particular creed1 would    
probably agree that some of us are too  
rich1 and that a great many are  too    
poor4 ,but we still have to ask1 in what
 sense it is conceivable  that a real   
suppression of competition can          
contribute to the desired  end4 ,it is  
obvious that when we denounce           
competition we often mean not  that it  
is to be abolished1 but that it is to be
 regulated and limited  in its          
application4 ,so1 for example1 people   
sometimes speak as if  competition were 
the antithesis to co-operation4 ,but ,i 
need hardly say  that individualists1 as
 well as their opponents1 may           
legitimately sing  the praises of       
co-operation4 ,nobody was more forward  
than ,mill1 for  example1 and ,mill's   
followers1 in advocating the principles 
of the  early co-operative societies4   
,he and they rejoiced to believe that   
the  co-operative societies had revealed
 unsuspected virtues and capacities  in 
the class from which they sprang2 that  

they had done much to raise  the        
standard of life and to extend sympathy 
and human relations among  previously   
disconnected units of society4 ,but it  
is1 of course1 equally  obvious that    
they have grown up in a society which   
supposes free  competition in every part
 of its industrial system2 that         
co-operative  societies1 so far as the  
outside world is concerned1 have to buy 
in the  cheapest and sell in the dearest
 market2 that the rate of wages of      
their members is still fixed by         
competition2 and that they encourage    
habits of saving and forethought which  
presuppose that each man is to  have    
private ends of his own4 ,in what sense1
 then1 can co-operation  ever be        
regarded as really opposed to           
competition8 ,competition may  exist    
among groups of men just as much as     
among individuals3 a state of  war is   
not less a state of war if it is carried
 on by regiments and  armies1 instead of
 by mere chaotic struggles in which each

 man fights  for his own hand4          
,competition does not mean that there   
should be no  combination1 but that     
there should be no monopoly4 ,so long as
 a trade  or a profession is open to    
every one who chooses to take it up1 its
  conduct will be equally regulated by  
competition1 whether it be  competition 
as between societies or individuals1 or 
whether its profits  be divided upon one
 system or another between the various  
classes  concerned4 ,co-operators1 of   
course1 may look forward to a day in    
which  society at large will be members 
of a single co-operative society2 or1   
again1 to a time in which every         
industrial enterprise may be conducted  
by the ,state4 ,supposing any such      
aspiration to be realised1 the  question
 still remains1 whether they would      
amount to the abolition or  still only  
to the shifting of the incidence of     
competition4 ,socialists  tell us that  
hitherto the labourer has not had his   
fair share of the  produce of industry4 

,the existing system has sanctioned a   
complicated  chicanery1 by which one    
class has been enabled to live as mere  
bloodsuckers and parasites upon the rest
 of society4 ,property is the  result of
 theft1 instead of being1 as ,economists
 used to assure us1 the  reward of      
thrift4 ,it is hoped that these evils   
may be remedied by a  reconstruction of 
society1 in which the means of          
production shall all  be public         
property1 and every man's income be     
simply a salary in  proportion to the   
quantity of his labour4 ,if we1 then1   
ask how far  competition would be       
abolished1 we may first make one remark4
 ,such a  system1 like every other      
system1 requires1 for its successful    
working1  that the instincts and moral  
impulses should correspond to the       
demands  of the society4 ,absolute      
equality of property is just as         
compatible  with universal misery as    
with universal prosperity4 ,a population
 made  up of thoroughly lazy1 sensual1  

stupid individuals could1 if it chose1  
work such a machinery so as to suppress 
all who were industrious1  refined and  
intelligent4 ,however great may be the  
revenue of a nation1  it is a very      
simple problem of arithmetic to discover
 how many people  could be supported    
just above the starvation level4 ,the   
nation at large  would1 on the supposed 
system1 have to decide how its numbers  
and wants  are to be proportioned to its
 means4 ,if individuals do not compete1 
the  whole society has1 presumably1 to  
compete with other societies2 and1 in   
every case whatever1 with the general   
forces of nature4 ,an indolent and      
inefficient majority might decide1 if it
 pleased1 that the amount of  work to be
 exacted should be that which would be  
just enough to provide  the simplest    
material necessities4 ,if1 again1 the   
indolent and  inefficient are to exist  
at all1--and we can scarcely count upon 
their  disappearance1--and if further1  
they are to share equally with the      

industrious and the efficient1 we must1 
in some way1 coerce them into  the      
required activity4 ,if every industrial 
organisation is to be worked  by the    
,state1 the ,state1 it would seem1 must 
appeal to the only means  at its        
disposal1--namely1 the prison and the   
scourge4 ,if1 moreover1 the  idle and   
sensual choose to multiply1 the ,state  
must force them to  refrain1 or the     
standard of existence will be lowered4  
,and1 therefore1  as is often argued1   
,socialism logically carried out would1 
under such  conditions1 lead to slavery2
 to a state in which labour would be    
enforced1 and the whole system of life  
absolutely regulated by the will  of the
 majority2 and1 in the last resort1 by  
physical force4 ,that  seems1 ,i        
confess1 to be a necessary result1      
unless you can assume a  moral change1  
which is entirely different from the    
mere change of  machinery1 and not      
necessarily implied1 nor even made      
probable1 by the  change4 ,the          

intellectual leaders of ,socialism1 no  
doubt1 assume that  the removal of      
injustice will lead to the development  
of a public  spirit which will cause the
 total efficiency to be as great as it  
is at  present1 or perhaps greater4 ,but
 the mass who call themselves           
,socialists take1 one suspects1 a much  
simpler view4 ,they are moved by  the   
very natural1 but not especially lofty1 
desire to have more wages  and less     
work4 ,they take for granted that if    
their share of the total  product is    
increased1 they will get a larger       
dividend2 and do not stop  to inquire   
whether the advantage may be not more   
than counterbalanced  by the diminution 
of the whole product1 when the present  
incitements to  industry are removed4   
,they argue1--that is1 so far as they   
argue at  all1--as though the quantity  
to be distributed were a fixed quantity1
  and regard capitalists as pernicious  
persons1 somehow intercepting a  lion's 
share of the stream of wealth which1 it 

is assumed1 would flow  equally if they 
were abolished4 ,that is1 of course1 to 
beg the whole  question4    ,i1 however1
 shall venture to assume that the       
industrial machinery  requires a        
corresponding moral force to work it2   
and ,i1 therefore1  proceed to ask how  
such a force can be supposed to act     
without some  form of competition4      
,nothing1 as a recent writer            
suggests1--ironically1  perhaps1--could 
be easier than to secure an abolition of
 competition4  ,you have only to do two 
things3 to draw a ring-fence round your 
society1 and then to proportion the     
members within the fence to the         
supplies4 ,the remark suggests the      
difficulty4 ,a ring-fence1 for  example1
 round ,london or ,manchester would mean
 the starvation of  millions in a month2
 or1 if round ,england1 the ruin of     
,english  commerce1 the enormous rise in
 the cost of the poor man's food1 and   
the  abolition of all his little        
luxuries4 ,but1 if you include even a   

population as large as ,london1 what you
 have next to do is to drill  some      
millions of people--vast numbers of them
 poor1 reckless1 ignorant1  sensual1 and
 selfish--to regulate their whole mode  
of life by a given  code1 and refrain   
from all the pleasures which they most  
appreciate4  ,the task is a big one1 and
 not the less if you have also to       
undertake  that everybody1 whatever his 
personal qualities1 shall have enough to
  lead a comfortable life4 ,i do not    
suppose1 however1 that any rational     
,socialist would accept that programme  
of isolation4 ,he would hold that1  in  
his ,utopia1 we can do more efficiently 
all that is done under a  system which  
he regards as wasteful and unjust4 ,the 
existing machinery1  whatever else may  
be said of it1 does1 in fact1 tend to   
weld the whole  world more and more into
 a single industrial organism4 ,english 
workmen  are labouring to satisfy the   
wants of other human beings in every    
quarter of the world2 while ,chinese1   

and ,africans1 and ,europeans1 and      
,americans are also labouring to satisfy
 theirs4 ,this vast and almost          
inconceivably complex machinery has     
grown up in the main unconsciously1  or1
 at least1 with a very imperfect        
anticipation of the ultimate  results1  
by the independent efforts of           
innumerable inventors1 and  speculators1
 and merchants1 and manufacturers1 each 
of them intent1 as  a rule1 only upon   
his own immediate profits and the       
interests of the  little circle with    
which he is in immediate contact4 ,the  
theory is not1  ,i suppose1 that this   
gigantic system of mutual               
interdependence should  be abolished or 
restricted1 but that it should be       
carried on  consciously1 with definite  
and intelligible purpose1 and in such a 
way  as to promote the interests of     
every fraction of society4 ,the whole   
organism should resemble one worked by a
 single brain1 instead of  representing 
the resultant of a multitude of         

distracted and conflicting  forces4 ,the
 difficulties are obvious enough1 nor   
need ,i dwell upon them  here4 ,i will  
not inquire whether it does not suppose 
something like  omniscience in the new  
industrial leaders2 and whether the     
restless and  multifarious energy now   
displayed in discovering new means of   
satisfying human wants could be supplied
 by a central body1 or a number  of     
central bodies1 made up of human beings1
 and1 moreover1 official  human beings1 
reluctant to try experiments and strike 
into new courses1  and without the      
present motives for enterprise1         
,individualists have  enlarged          
sufficiently upon such topics4 ,what ,i 
have to note is that1 in  any case1 the 
change supposes the necessity of a      
corresponding morality  in the growth of
 the instincts1 the public spirit1 the  
hatred of  indolence1 the temperance and
 self-command which would be requisite  
to  work it efficiently4 ,the           
organisation into which we are born     

presupposes certain moral instincts1    
and1 moreover1 necessarily implies  a   
vast system of moral discipline4 ,our   
hopes and aspirations1 our  judgments of
 our neighbours and of ourselves1 are at
 every moment  guided and moulded by the
 great structure of which we form a     
part4  ,whenever we ask how our lives   
are to be directed1 what are to be the  
terms on which we form our most intimate
 ties1 whom we are to support  or       
suppress1 how we are to win respect or  
incur contempt1 we are  profoundly      
affected by the social relations in     
which we are placed at  our birth1 and  
the corresponding beliefs or prejudices 
which we have  unconsciously imbibed4   
,such influences1 it may perhaps be     
said1 are of  incomparably greater      
importance than the direct exhortations 
to which  we listen1 or than the        
abstract doctrines which we accept in   
words1 but  which receive their whole   
colouring from the concrete facts to    
which  they conform4 ,now1 ,i ask how   

such discipline can be conceived without
  some kind of competition2 or1 rather1 
what would be the discipline  which     
would remain if1 in some sense1         
competition could be suppressed8  ,if in
 the ideal society there are still      
prizes to be won1 positions  which may  
be the object of legitimate desire1 and 
if those positions  are to be open to   
every one1 whatever his circumstances1  
we might still  have the keenest        
competition1 though carried on by       
different methods4  ,if1 on the other   
hand1 no man's position were to be      
better than  another's1 we might        
suppress competition at the price of    
suppressing  every motive for social as 
well as individual improvement4 ,in any 
conceivable state of things1 the welfare
 of every society1 the total  means of  
enjoyment at its disposal1 must depend  
upon the energy1  intelligence1 and     
trustworthiness of its constituent      
members4 ,such  qualities1 ,i need      
hardly say1 are qualities of            

individuals4 ,unless ,john  and ,peter  
and ,thomas are steady1 industrious1    
sober1 and honest1 the  society as a    
whole will be neither honest nor sober  
nor prosperous4 ,the  problem1 then1    
becomes1 how can you ensure the         
existence of such  qualities unless     
,john and ,peter and the rest have some 
advantage in  virtue of possessing them8
 ,somehow or other1 a man must be the   
better  off for doing his work well and 
treating his neighbour fairly4 ,he ought
  surely to hold the positions in which 
such qualities are most required1  and  
to have1 if possible1 the best chance of
 being a progenitor of the  rising      
generation4 ,a social condition in which
 it made no difference to  a man1 except
 so far as his own conscience was       
concerned1 whether he  were or were not 
honest1 would imply a society favourable
 to people  without a conscience1       
because giving full play to the forces  
which make  for corruption and          
disintegration4 ,if you remove the      

rewards accessible  to the virtuous and 
peaceful1 how are you to keep the       
penalties which  restrain the vicious   
and improvident8 ,a bare repeal of the  
law1 ,if a  man will not work1 neither  
shall he eat1 would not of itself       
promote  industry4 ,you would at most   
remove the compulsion which arises from 
competition1 to introduce the compulsion
 which uses physical force4 ,you  would 
get rid of what seems to some people the
 natural penalty of  want following     
waste1 and be forced to introduce the   
artificial or  legislative penalty of   
compulsory labour4 ,but1 otherwise1 you 
must  construct your society so that1 by
 the spontaneous play of society1 the   
purer elements may rise to the surface1 
and the scum sink to the  bottom4 ,so   
long as human nature varies             
indefinitely1 so long as we have  knaves
 and honest men1 sinners and saints1    
cowards and heroes1 some  process of    
energetic and active sifting is surely  
essential to the  preservation of social

 health2 and it is difficult to see how 
that is  conceivable without some       
process of active and keen competition4 
,the ,socialist will1 of course1 say1   
and say with too much truth1 that  the  
present form of competition is          
favourable to anti-social qualities4    
,if1 indeed1 a capitalist is not a      
person who increases the productive     
powers of industry1 but a person who    
manages simply to intercept a  share    
produced by the industry of others1     
there is1 of course1 much to  be said   
for this view4 ,i cannot now consider   
that point1 for my subject  to-day is   
the moral aspect of competition         
considered generally4 ,and  what ,i have
 just said suggests what is1 ,i think1  
the more purely moral  aspect of the    
question4 ,a reasonable ,socialist      
desires to maintain what  is good in the
 existing system1 while suppressing its 
abuses4 ,the  question1 ,what is good8  
is partly economical2 but it is partly  
also  ethical3 and it is with that part 

that ,i am at present concerned4    ,any
 system of competition1 any system which
 supposes a reward for  virtue other    
than virtue itself1 may be accused of   
promoting  selfishness and other ugly   
qualities4 ,the doctrine that virtue is 
its  own reward is very charming in the 
mouth of the virtuous man2 but when  his
 neighbours use it as an excuse for not 
rewarding him1 it becomes  rather less  
attractive4 ,it saves a great deal of   
trouble1 no doubt1 and  relieves us from
 an awkward responsibility4 ,i must1    
however1 point out1  in the first place1
 that a fallacy is often introduced into
 these  discussions which ,mr4 ,herbert 
,spencer has done a great deal to       
expose4  ,he has dwelt very forcibly1   
for example1 on the fact that it is a   
duty  to be happy and healthy2 and that 
selfishness1 if used in a bad sense1    
should not mean simply regard for       
ourselves1 but only disregard for our   
neighbours4 ,we ought not1 in other     
words1 to be unjust because we          

ourselves happen to be the objects of   
injustice4 ,the parable of the  good    
,samaritan is generally regarded as a   
perfect embodiment of a great  moral    
truth4 ,translated from poetry into an  
abstract logical form1 it  amounts to   
saying that we should do good to the man
 who most needs our  services1 whatever 
be the accidents which alienate ordinary
 sympathies4  ,now1 suppose that the    
good ,samaritan had himself fallen among
 thieves1  what would have been his     
duty8 ,his first duty1 ,i should say1   
would have  been1 if possible1 to knock 
down the thief2 his second1 to tie up   
his  own wounds2 and his third1 to call 
in the police4 ,we should not1  perhaps1
 call him virtuous for such conduct2 but
 we should clearly  think him wrong for 
omitting it4 ,not to resist a thief is  
cowardly2 not  to attend to your own    
health is to incapacitate yourself for  
duty2 not  to apply to the police is to 
be wanting in public spirit4 ,assuming  
robbery to be wrong1 ,i am not the less 

bound to suppress it because ,i  happen 
to be the person robbed2 ,i am only     
bound not to be  vindictive--that is1   
not to allow my personal feelings to    
make me act  otherwise than ,i should   
act if ,i had no special interest in the
  particular case4 ,adam ,smith's       
favourite rule of the indifferent       
spectator is the proper one in the case4
 ,i should be impartial1 and  incline no
 more to severity than to lenity1       
because ,i am forced by  circumstances  
to act both as judge and as plaintiff4  
,so1 in questions  of self-support1 it  
is obviously a fallacy to assume that an
 action1  directed in the first instance
 to a man's own benefit1 is therefore to
  be stigmatised as selfish4 ,on the    
good ,samaritan's principle1 a person   
should be supported1 ceteris paribus1 by
 the person who can do  it most         
efficiently1 and in nine cases out of   
ten that person is  himself4 ,if        
self-support is selfish in the sense    
that the service is  directly rendered  

to self1 it is not the less unselfish in
 so far as it  is necessarily also a    
service to others4 ,if ,i keep myself by
 my labour1  ,i am preventing a burden  
from falling upon my fellows4 ,and1 of  
course1  the case is stronger when ,i   
include my family4 ,we were all         
impressed  the other day by the story of
 the poor boy who got some wretchedly   
small pittance by his work1 spent a     
small portion of it upon his own  needs1
 and devoted the chief part of it to    
trying to save his mother  and her other
 children from starvation4 ,was he      
selfish8 ,was he selfish  even in taking
 something for himself1 as the only prop
 of his family8  ,what may be the       
immediate motive of a man when he is    
working for his  own bread and the bread
 of his family may often be a difficult 
question2 but as1 in point of fact1 he  
is helping not only himself and  those  
who depend on him1 but also in some     
degree relieving others from  a burden1 
his conduct must clearly not be set down

 as selfish in any  sense which involves
 moral disapproval4    ,let us apply    
this to the case of competition4 ,the   
word is generally  used to convey a     
suggestion of selfishness in a bad      
sense4 ,we think of  the hardship upon  
the man who is ousted1 as much as of the
 benefit to  the man who gets in2 or    
perhaps we think of it more4 ,it        
suggests to us  that one man has been   
shut out for the benefit of his         
neighbour2 and  that1 of course1        
suggests envy1 malice1 and all          
uncharitableness4 ,we  hold that such   
competition must generate ill-will4 ,i  
used--when ,i was  intimately connected 
with a competitive system at the        
university--to  hear occasionally of the
 evil influences of competition1 as     
tending to  promote jealousy between    
competitors4 ,i always replied that1 so 
far as  my experience went1 the evil was
 altogether imaginary4 ,so far from     
competition generating ill-will1 the    
keenest competitors were1 as a  rule1   

the closest friends4 ,there was no      
stronger bond than the bond of  rivalry 
in our intellectual contests4 ,one main 
reason was1 of course1  that we had     
absolute faith in the fairness of the   
competition4 ,we felt  that it would be 
unworthy to complain of being beaten by 
a better man2  and we had no doubt that1
 in point of fact1 the winners were the 
better  men2 or1 at any rate1 were      
honestly believed to be the better men  
by  those who distributed honours4 ,the 
case1 though on a small scale1 may      
suggest one principle4 ,so far as the   
end of such competitions is good1  the  
normal motives cannot be bad4 ,the end  
of a fair competition is the  discovery 
of the ablest men1 with a view to       
placing them in the  position where     
their talents may be turned to most     
account4 ,it can only  be achieved so   
far as each man does his best to train  
his own powers1  and is prepared to test
 them fairly against the powers of      
others4 ,to  work for that end is1 then1

 not only permissible1 but a duty4 ,the 
spirit in which the end is pursued may  
be bad1 in so far as a man  pursues it  
by unfair means2 in so far as he tries  
to make sham  performance pass off for  
genuine2 or1 again1 in so far as he sets
 an  undue value upon the reward1 as    
apart from the qualities by which it is 
gained4 ,but if he works simply with the
 desire of making the best of  himself1 
and if the reward is simply such a      
position as may enable him  to be most  
useful to society1 the competition which
 results will be  bracing and           
invigorating1 and will appeal to no such
 motives as can be  called1 in the bad  
sense1 selfish4 ,he is discharging a    
function which  is useful1 it is true1  
to himself2 but which is also           
intrinsically  useful to the whole      
society4 ,the same principle applies1   
again1 to  intellectual activity in     
general4 ,all genuine thought is        
essentially  useful to mankind4 ,in the 
struggle to discover truth1 even our    

antagonists are1 necessarily1 our       
co-operators4 ,a philosopher1 as a man  
of science1 owes1 at least1 as much to  
those who differ from him1 as to  those 
who agree with him4 ,the conflict of    
many minds1 from many sides1  is the    
essential condition of intellectual     
progress4 ,now1 if a man  plays his part
 manfully and honourably in such a      
struggle1 he deserves  our gratitude1   
even if he takes the wrong side4 ,if he 
looks forward to  the recognition by the
 best judges as one motive for his      
activity1 ,i  think that he is asking   
for a worthy reward4 ,he deserves blame1
 only so  far as his motives have a     
mixture of unworthy personal sentiment4 
,obviously1 if he aims at cheap fame1 at
 making a temporary sensation  instead  
of a permanent impression1 at flattering
 prejudices instead of  spreading truth2
 or1 if he shows greediness of          
notoriety1 by trying to  get unjust     
credit1 as we sometimes see scientific  
people squabbling  over claims to the   

first promulgation of some trifling     
discovery1 he is  showing paltriness of 
spirit4 ,the men whom we revere are     
those who1  like ,faraday or ,darwin1   
devoted themselves exclusively to the   
advancement of knowledge1 and would have
 scorned a reputation won by  anything  
but genuine work4 ,the fact that there  
is a competition in such  matters       
implies1 no doubt1 a temptation1--the   
temptation to set a  higher value upon  
praise than upon praiseworthiness2 but  
,i think it not  only possible that the 
competitors in such rivalries may keep  
to the  honourable path1 but probable   
that1 as a matter of fact1 they         
frequently1--,i hope that ,i may say    
generally1--do so4 ,if the fame at      
which a man aims be not that which in   
broad rumour lies1 but that  which lives
 and spreads aloft in those pure eyes   
and perfect witness  of all-judging     
,jove1 then ,i think that the desire for
 it is scarcely  to be called a last    
infirmity--rather1 it is an inseparable 

quality of  noble minds4 ,we wish to    
honour men who have been good soldiers  
in that  warfare1 and we can hardly wish
 them to be indifferent to our homage4  
,we may add1 then1 that a competition   
need not be demoralising when the       
competitors have lofty aims and use only
 honourable means4 ,when1  passing from 
purely intellectual aims1 we consider   
the case1 say1 of  the race for wealth1 
we may safely make an analogous remark4 
,if a man's  aim in becoming rich is of 
the vulgar kind2 if he wishes to make an
  ostentatious display of wealth1 and to
 spend his money upon  demoralising     
amusement2 or if1 again1 he tries to    
succeed by quackery  instead of by the  
production of honest work1 he is1 of    
course1 so far  mischievous and immoral4
 ,but a man whose aims are              
public-spirited1 nay1  even if they be  
such as simply tend to improve the      
general comfort2 who  develops1 for     
example1 the resources of the country1  
and introduces new  industries or more  

effective modes of manufacture1 is1     
undoubtedly1 in  fact conferring a      
benefit upon his fellows1 and may1 so   
far1 be doing  his duty in the most     
effectual way open to him4 ,if he       
succeeds by being  really a more        
efficient man of business than his      
neighbours1 he is only  doing what1 in  
the interests of all1 it is desirable   
that he should do4  ,he is discharging  
an essential social function2 and what  
is to be  desired is1 that he should    
feel the responsibility involved1 that  
he  should regard his work as on one    
side the discharge of a social          
function1 and not simply as a means of  
personal aggrandisement4 ,it is  not the
 fact that he is competing that is      
against him2 but the fact1  when it is a
 fact1 that there is something          
discreditable about the  means which he 
adopts1 or the reward that he           
contemplates4    ,this1 indeed1 suggests
 another and a highly important         
question--the  question1 namely1        

whether1 in our present social state1   
his reward may  not be excessive1 and   
won at too great a cost to his rivals4  
,and1  without going into other         
questions involved1 ,i will try to say a
  little1 in conclusion1 upon this1     
which is certainly a pressing  problem4 
,competition1 ,i have suggested1 is not 
immoral if it is a  competition in doing
 honest work by honourable means1 and if
 it is also  a fair competition4 ,but it
 must1 of course1 be added1 that        
fairness  includes more than the simple 
equality of chances4 ,it supposes1 also1
  that there should be some proportion  
between the rewards and the  merits4 ,if
 it is simply a question between two    
men1 which shall be  captain of a ship1 
and which shall be mate1 then the best  
plan is to  decide by their merits as   
sailors2 and1 if their merits be fairly 
tried1 the loser need bear no grudge    
against the winner4 ,but when we  have  
such cases as sometimes occur1 when1 for
 example1 the ship is cast  away1 and it

 becomes a question whether ,i shall eat
 you or you shall  eat me1 or1 let us   
say1 which of us is to have the last    
biscuit1 we get  one of those terrible  
cases of temptation in which the        
strongest social  bonds sometimes give  
way under the strain4 ,the competition1 
then1  becomes1 in the highest degree1  
demoralising1 and the struggle for      
existence resolves itself into a mere   
unscrupulous scramble for life1  at any 
sacrifice of others4 ,that1 it is       
sometimes said1 is a parallel  to our   
social state at present4 ,if ,i gave an 
excessive prize to the  first boy in a  
school and flogged the second1 ,i should
 not be doing  justice4 ,if one man is  
rewarded for a moderate amount of       
forethought by  becoming a millionaire1 
and his unsuccessful rivals punished by 
starvation or the workhouse1 the lottery
 of life is not arranged on  principles 
of justice4 ,a man must be a very       
determined optimist if he  denied the   
painful truth to be found in such       

statements4 ,he must be  blind to many  
evils if he does not perceive the danger
 of dulling his  sympathies by          
indifference to the fate of the         
unsuccessful4 ,the rich  man in         
,clough's poem observes that1 whether   
there be a ,god matters very  little--  
,for ,i and mine1 thank somebody1       
,manage to get our victual4    ,but1    
even if we are not very rich1 we must   
often1 ,i think1 doubt  whether we are  
not wrapping ourselves in a spirit of   
selfish  complacency when we are        
returning to a comfortable home and     
passing  outcasts of the street4 ,we    
must sometimes reflect that our comfort 
is  not simply a reward for virtue or   
intelligence1 even if it be not         
sometimes the prize of actual           
dishonesty4 ,to shut our eyes to the    
mass  of wretchedness around us is to   
harden our hearts1 although to open our 
hands is too often to do more harm than 
good4 ,it is no wonder that we  should  
be tempted to declaim against           

competition1 when the competition  means
 that so many unfortunates are to be    
crowded off their narrow                
standing-ground into the gulf of        
pauperism4    ,this may suggest the     
moral which ,i have been endeavouring to
 bring out4  ,looking at society at     
large1 we may surely say that it will be
 better  in proportion as every man is  
strenuously endeavouring to play his    
part1 and in which the parts are        
distributed to those best fitted to     
play them4 ,we must admit1 too1 that for
 any period to which we can look        
forward1 the great mass of mankind will 
find enough to occupy their  energies in
 labouring primarily for their own      
support1 and so bearing  the burden of  
their own needs and the needs of their  
families4 ,we may  infer1 too1 that a   
society will be the better so far as it 
gives the  most open careers to all     
talents1 wherever displayed1 and as it  
shows  respect for the homely virtues of
 industry1 integrity1 and forethought1  

which are essential to the whole body as
 to its constituent members4  ,and we   
may further say that the corresponding  
motives in the individual  cannot be    
immoral4 ,a desire of independence1 the 
self-respect which  makes a man shrink  
from accepting as a gift what he can win
 as a fair  reward1 the love of         
fairplay1 which makes him use only      
honest means in  the struggle1 are      
qualities which can never lose their    
value1 and which  are not the less      
valuable because in the first instance  
they are most  profitable to their      
possessors4 ,nothing which tends to     
weaken such  motives can be good2 but   
while they preserve their intensity1    
they  necessarily imply the existence of
 competition in some form or other4     
,it is equally clear that competition by
 itself is not a sufficient  panacea4   
,whenever we take an abstract quality1  
personify it by the help  of capital    
letters1 and lay it down as the one     
principle of a complex  system1 we      

generally blunder4 ,competition is as   
far as possible from  being the solitary
 condition of a healthy society4 ,it    
must be not only  a competition for     
worthy ends by honourable means1 but    
should be a  competition so regulated   
that the reward may bear some proportion
 to  the merit4 ,monopoly is an evil in 
so far as it means an exclusive         
possession of some advantages or        
privileges1 especially when they are    
given by the accidents of birth or      
position4 ,it is something if they  are 
given to the best and the ablest2 but   
the evil still remains if  even the best
 and ablest are rewarded by a position  
which cramps the  energies and lowers   
the necessity of others4 ,competition is
 only  desirable in so far as it is a   
process by which the useful qualities   
are encouraged by an adequate1 and not  
more than an adequate1 stimulus2  and in
 which1 therefore1 there is not involved
 the degradation and the  misery on the 
one side1 the excessive reward on the   

other1 of the  unsuccessful and the     
successful in the struggle4             
,competition1  therefore1 we might say1 
could be unequivocally beneficial only  
in an  ideal society2 in a state in     
which we might unreservedly devote      
ourselves to making the best of our     
abilities and accepting the  consequent 
results1 without the painful sense in   
the background that  others were being  
sacrificed and debased2 crushed because 
they had less  luck in the struggle1 and
 were1 perhaps1 only less deserving in  
some  degree than ourselves4 ,so long as
 we are still far enough from having    
realised any such state2 so long as we  
feel1 and cannot but feel1 that  the    
distribution of rewards is so much at   
the mercy of chance1 and so  often goes 
to qualities which1 in an ideal state1  
would deserve rather  reprobation than  
applause1 we can only aim at better     
things4 ,we can do  what in us lies to  
level some inequalities1 to work1 so far
 as our  opportunities enable us1 in the

 causes which are mostly beneficial for 
the race1 to spread enlightenment and   
good feeling1 and to help the           
unfortunate4 ,but it is also incumbent  
upon us to remember carefully1  what is 
so often overlooked in the denunciations
 of competition1 that  the end for which
 we must hope1 and the approach to which
 we must  further1 is one in which the  
equivocal virtue of charity shall be    
suppressed2 that is1 in which no man    
shall be dependent upon his  neighbour  
in such a sense as to be able to neglect
 his own duties2 in  which there may be 
normally a reciprocity of good services1
 and the  reciprocity not be 7as has    
been said7 all on one side4 ,there is a 
very  explicable tendency at present to 
ask for such one-sided reciprocity4  ,it
 is natural enough1 for reasons too     
obvious to be mentioned1 that  reformers
 should dwell exclusively upon the right
 of every one to  support1 and neglect  
to point out the correlative duty of    
every one to  do his best to support    

himself4 ,the popular arguments about   
old-age  pensions may illustrate the    
general state of mind4 ,it is           
disgraceful1  people say1 that so large 
a proportion of the aged poor should    
come to  depend upon the rates4         
,undoubtedly it is disgraceful4 ,then   
upon whom  does the disgrace fall8 ,it  
sounds harsh to say that it falls upon  
the  sufferers4 ,we shrink from saying  
to a pauper1 ,it serves you right4      
,that sounds brutal1 and is only in part
 true4 ,still1 we should not  shrink    
from stating whatever is true1 painful  
though it may be4 ,it  sounds better to 
lay all the blame upon the oppressor    
than to lay it  upon the oppressed2 and 
yet1 as a rule1 the cowardice or folly  
of the  oppressed has generally been one
 cause of their misfortunes1 and cannot 
be overlooked in a true estimate of the 
case4 ,that drunkenness1  improvidence1 
love of gambling1 and so forth1 do in   
fact lead to  pauperism is undeniable2  
and that they are bad1 and so far       

disgraceful1  is a necessary            
consequence4 ,in such cases1 then1      
pauperism is a proof  of bad qualities2 
and the fact1 like all other facts1 must
 be  recognised4 ,the stress of         
argument1 therefore1 is laid upon the   
hardships suffered by the honest and    
industrious poor4 ,the logical          
consequence should be1 that the         
deserving poor should become            
pensioners1 and the undeserving paupers4
 ,this at once opens the  amazingly     
difficult question of moral merit1 and  
the power of poor-law  officials to     
solve problems which would certainly    
puzzle the keenest  psychologists4      
,suppose1 for example1 that a man1      
without being  definitely vicious1 has  
counted upon the promised pension1 and  
therefore neglected any attempts to     
save4 ,if you give him a pension1  you  
virtually tell everybody that saving is 
a folly2 if you don't1 you  inflict upon
 him the stigma which is deserved by the
 drunkard and the  thief4 ,so difficult 

is it to arrange for this proposed      
valuation of a  man's moral qualities   
that it has been proposed to get rid of 
all  stigma by making it the right and  
duty of every one to take a pension4    
,that might conceivably alter the       
praise1 but it would surely not alter   
the praiseworthiness4 ,it must be wrong 
in me to take money from my  neighbours 
when ,i don't want it2 and1 if wrong1 it
 surely ought to be  disgraceful4 ,and  
this seems to indicate the real point4  
,we may aim at  altering the facts1 at  
making them more conducive to good      
qualities2  but we cannot alter or      
attempt to decide by laws the degree of 
praise  or blame to be attached to      
individuals4 ,it would be very desirable
 to  bring about a state of things in   
which no honest and provident man need  
ever fall into want2 and1 in that state1
 pauperism would be rightly             
discreditable as an indication of bad   
qualities4 ,but to say that nobody      
shall be ashamed of taking support would

 be to ruin the essential  economic     
virtues1 and to pauperise the nation2   
and to try to lay down  precise rules as
 to the distribution of honour and      
discredit1 seems1 to  me1 to be a       
problem beyond the power of a           
legislature4 ,i express no  opinion upon
 the question itself1 because ,i am     
quite incompetent to do  so4 ,i only    
refer to it as illustrating the         
difficulties which beset us  when we try
 to remove the evils of the present     
system1 and yet to  preserve the        
stimulus to industry1 which is implied  
in competition4 ,the  shortest plan is  
to shut one's eyes to the difficulty1   
and roundly deny  its existence4 ,i hope
 that our legislators may hit upon some 
more  promising methods4 ,the ordinary  
mode of cutting the knot too often      
suggests that the actually contemplated 
ideal is the land in which the  chickens
 run about ready roasted1 and the curse 
of labour is finally  removed from      
mankind4 ,the true ideal1 surely1 is the

 state in which  labour shall be        
generally a blessing2 in which we shall 
recognise the  fact--disagreeable or    
otherwise--that the race can only be    
elevated by  the universal diffusion of 
public spirit1 and a general conviction 
that  it is every man's first duty to   
cultivate his own capacities1 to turn   
them to the best possible account1 and  
to work strenuously and heartily  in    
whatever position he has been placed4   
,it is because ,i cannot help  thinking 
that when we attack competition in      
general terms1 we are1 too  often1      
blinding ourselves to those homely and  
often-repeated1 and1 as ,i  believe1    
indisputable truths1 that ,i have       
ventured to speak to-day1  namely1 on   
the side of competition--so far1 at     
least1 on the side of  competition as to
 suggest that our true ideal should be1 
not a state1  if such a state be        
conceivable1 in which there is no       
competition1 but a  state in which      
competition should be so regulated that 

it should be  really equivalent to a    
process of bringing about the best      
possible  distribution of the whole     
social forces2 and should be held to be1
  because it would really be1 not a     
struggle of each man to seize upon a    
larger share of insufficient means1 but 
the honest effort of each man  to do the
 very utmost he can to make himself a   
thoroughly efficient  member of society4
          ,,social ,,equality4      ,the
 problem of which ,i propose to speak is
 the old dispute between  ,dives and    
,lazarus4 ,lazarus1 presumably1 was a   
better man than ,dives4  ,how could     
,dives justify himself for living in    
purple and fine linen1  while ,lazarus  
was lying at the gates1 with the dogs   
licking his sores8  ,the problem is one 
of all ages1 and takes many forms4 ,when
 the old  ,puritan saw a man going to   
the gallows1 ,there1 he said1 but for   
the  grace of ,god1 goes ,john          
,bradford4 ,when the rich man1 entering 
his  club1 sees some wretched           

tatterdemalion1 slouching on the        
pavement1  there1 he may say1 goes ,sir 
,gorgius ,midas1 but for--what8 ,i am   
here and  he there1 he may say1 because 
,i was the son of a successful          
stock-jobber1 and he the son of some    
deserted mother at the workhouse4  ,that
 is the cause1 but is it a reason8      
,suppose1 as is likely enough1  that    
,lazarus is as good a man as ,midas1    
ought they not to change  places1 or to 
share their property equally8 ,a        
question1 certainly1 to  be asked1 and1 
if possible1 to be answered4    ,it is  
often answered1 and is most simply      
answered1 by saying that all  men ought 
to be equal4 ,dives should be cut up and
 distributed in equal  shares between   
,lazarus and his brethren4 ,the dogma   
which embodies this  claim is one which 
is easily refuted in some of the senses 
which it may  bear1 though in spite of  
such refutations it has become an       
essential  part of the most genuine     
creed of mankind4 ,the man of science   

says1  with perfect truth1 that so far  
from men being born equal1 some are     
born with the capacity of becoming      
,shakespeares and ,newtons1 and others  
with scarcely the power of rising above 
,sally the chimpanzee4 ,the  answer     
would be conclusive1 if anybody demanded
 that we should all be  just six feet   
high1 with brains weighing sixty ounces1
 neither more nor  less4 ,it is also    
true1 and1 ,i conceive1 more relevant1  
that1 as the man  of science will again 
say1 all improvement has come through   
little  groups of men superior to their 
neighbours1 through races or through    
classes1 which1 by elevating themselves 
on the shoulders of others1  have gained
 leisure and means for superior         
cultivation4 ,but equality  may be      
demanded as facilitating this process1  
by removing the  artificial advantages  
of wealth4 ,it may be taken as a demand 
for a fair  start1 not as a demand that 
the prizes shall be distributed         
irrespectively of individual worth4     

,and1 whether the demand is rightly  or 
wrongly expressed1 we must1 ,i think1   
admit that the real force with  which we
 have to reckon is the demand for       
justice and for equality as  somehow    
implied by justice4 ,it is easy to      
browbeat a poor man who wants  bread and
 cheese for himself and his family1 by  
calling his demands  materialistic1 and 
advising him to turn his mind to the    
future state1  where he will have the   
best of ,dives4 ,it is equally easy to  
ascribe the  demands to mere envy and   
selfishness1 or to those evil-minded    
agitators  who1 for their own wicked    
purposes1 induce men to prefer a guinea 
to a  pound of wages4 ,but1 after all1  
there is something in the demand for    
fair play and for the means of leading  
decent lives1 which requires a  better  
answer4 ,it is easy1 again1 to say that 
all ,socialists are  ,utopian4 ,make    
every man equal to-day1 and the old     
inequalities will  reappear to-morrow4  
,pitch such a one over ,london ,bridge1 

it was said1  with nothing on but his   
breeches1 and he will turn up at        
,woolwich with  his pockets full of     
gold4 ,it is as idle to try for a dead  
level1 when  you work with such         
heterogeneous materials1 as to persuade 
a  homogeneous fluid to stand at        
anything but a dead level4 ,but surely  
it  may be urged that this is as much a 
reason for declining to believe  that   
equal conditions of life will produce   
mere monotony1 as for  insisting that   
equality in any state is impossible4    
,the present system  includes a plan for
 keeping the scum at the surface4 ,one  
of the few  lessons which ,i have learnt
 from life1 and not found already in    
copy-books1 is the enormous difficulty  
which a man of the respectable  classes 
finds in completely ruining himself1    
even by vice1  extravagance1 and folly2 
whereas1 there are plenty of honest     
people  who1 in spite of economy and    
prudence1 can scarcely keep outside of  
the  workhouse4 ,admitting the appeal to

 justice1 it is1 again1 often urged     
that justice is opposed to the demand   
for equality4 ,property is sacred1  it  
is said1 because a man has 7or ought to 
have7 a right to what he has  made      
either by labour or by a course of fair 
dealings with other men4 ,i  am not     
about to discuss the ultimate ground on 
which the claim to  private property is 
justified1 and1 as ,i think1            
satisfactorily  established4 ,a man has 
a right1 we say1 to all that he has     
fairly  earned4 ,has he1 then1 a right  
to inherit what his father has earned8  
,a  man has had the advantage of all    
that a rich father can do for him in    
education1 and so forth4 ,why should he 
also have the father's fortune1  without
 earning it8 ,are the merits of making  
money so great that they  are           
transmissible to posterity8 ,should a   
man who has been so good as to  become  
rich1 be blessed even to the third and  
fourth generation8 ,why1  as a matter of
 pure justice1 should not all fortunes  

be applied to  public uses1 on the death
 of the man who made them8 ,such a law1 
however  impolitic1 would not be        
incompatible with the moral principle to
 which  an appeal is made4 ,there are1  
of course1 innumerable other ways in    
which laws may favour an equality of    
property1 without breaking any of  the  
fundamental principles4 ,what1 for      
example1 is the just method of          
distributing taxation8 ,a rich man can  
not only pay more money than a  poor    
man1 in proportion to his income1 but he
 can1 with equal ease1 pay  a greater   
proportion4 ,to double the income of a  
labourer may be to  raise him from      
starvation to comfort4 ,to double the   
income of a  millionaire may simply be  
to encumber him with wealth by which he 
is  unable to increase his own pleasure4
 ,there is a limit beyond which it  is  
exceedingly difficult to find ways of   
spending money on one's own             
enjoyment--though ,i have never been    
able to fix it precisely4 ,on this      

ground1 such plans as a graduated       
income-tax are1 it would seem1          
compatible with the plea of justice2    
and1 within certain limits1 we do1  in  
fact1 approve of various taxes1 on the  
ground1 real or supposed1  that they    
tend to shift burdens from the poor to  
the rich1 and1 so far1  to equalise     
wealth4 ,in fact1 this appeal to justice
 is a tacit  concession of the          
principle4 ,if we justify property on   
the ground that  it is fair that a man  
should keep what he has earned by his   
own labour1  it seems to follow that it 
is unjust that he should have anything  
not  earned by his labour4 ,in other    
words1 the answer admits the ordinary   
first principle from which ,socialism   
starts1 and which1 in some  ,socialist  
theories1 it definitely tries to embody4
    ,all that ,i have tried to do1 so   
far1 is to show that the bare doctrine  
of equality1 which is in some way       
connected with the demand for  justice1 
is not1 of necessity1 either unjust or  

impracticable4 ,it  may be used to cover
 claims which are unjust1 to sanction   
bare  confiscation1 to take away motives
 for industry1 and1 briefly1 may be a   
demand of the drones to have an equal   
share of the honey4 ,from the bare      
abstract principle of equality between  
men1 we can1 in my own opinion1  deduce 
nothing2 and1 ,i do not think that the  
principle can itself be  established4   
,that is why it is made a first         
principle1 or1 in other  words1 one     
which is not to be discussed4 ,the      
,french revolutionists  treated it in   
this way as  priori and self-evident4   
,no school was in  more deadly          
opposition to such  priori truths than  
the school of  ,bentham and the         
utilitarians4 ,yet1 ,bentham's famous   
doctrine1 that in  calculating happiness
 each man is to count for one1 and      
nobody for more  than one1 seems to be  
simply the old principle in a new       
disguise4 ,james  ,mill applied the     
doctrine to politics4 ,j4 ,s4 ,mill     

again applied it1  with still more      
thoroughness1 especially in his doctrine
 of  representation and of the equality 
of the sexes4 ,accordingly1 various     
moralists have urged that this was an   
inconsistency in utilitarian  doctrine1 
implying that they1 too1 could make     
priori first  principles when they      
wanted them4 ,it has become a sort of   
orthodox  dogma with radicals1 who do   
not always trouble themselves about a   
philosophical basis1 and is applied with
 undoubting confidence to many          
practical political problems4 ,one man1 
one vote is not simply the  formulation 
of a demand1 but seems to intimate a    
logical ground for the  demand4 ,if1 in 
politics1 one man is rightfully entitled
 to one vote1 is  it not also true that1
 in economics1 one man should have a    
right to one  income1 or1 that money1   
like political power1 should be         
distributed  into precisely equal       
shares8 ,yet1 why are we to take for    
granted the  equality of men in the     

sense required for such deductions8     
,since men  are not equally qualified   
for political power1 it would seem      
better  prim facie that each man should 
have the share of power and  wealth     
which corresponds to his powers of      
using1 or1 perhaps1 to his  powers of   
enjoying4 ,why should we not say1 ,to   
each man according to  his deserts8 ,one
 practical reason1 of course1 is the    
extreme  difficulty of saying what are  
the deserts1 and how they are to be     
ascertained4 ,undoubtedly1 equality is  
the shortest and simplest way  but1 if  
we take it merely as the most convenient
 assumption1 it loses  its attractive   
appearance of abstract justice or       
priori  self-certainty4 ,do a common    
labourer and ,mr4 ,gladstone deserve the
 same  share of voting power8 ,if not1  
how many votes should ,mr4 ,gladstone   
possess to give him his just influence8 
,to ask such questions is to  show that 
answering is impossible1 though         
political theorists have1 now  and then1

 tried to put together some ostensible  
pretext for an answer4    ,what1 let us 
ask1 is the true relation between       
justice and equality8 ,a  judge1 to take
 the typical case1 is perfectly just    
when he ascertains  the facts by logical
 inferences from the evidence1 and then 
applies the  law in the spirit of a     
scientific reasoner4 ,given the facts1  
what is  the rule under which they come8
 ,to answer that question1 generally    
speaking1 is his whole duty4 ,in other  
words1 he has to exclude all  irrelevant
 considerations1 such as his own private
 interests or  affections4 ,the parties 
are to be to him merely ,a and ,b1 and  
he has to  work out the result as an    
arithmetician works out a sum4 ,among   
the  irrelevant considerations are      
frequently some moral aspects of the    
case4 ,a judge1 for example1 decides a  
will to be valid or invalid  without    
asking whether the testator acted justly
 or unjustly in a moral  sense1 but     
simply whether his action was legal or  

illegal4 ,he cannot go  behind the law1 
even from motives of benevolence or     
general maxims of  justice1 without     
being an unjust judge4 ,cases may arise1
 indeed1 as ,i  must say in passing1 in 
which this is hardly true4 ,a law may be
 so  flagrantly unjust that a virtuous  
judge would refuse to administer it4    
,one striking case was that of the      
fugitive slave law in the ,united       
,states1 where a man had to choose      
between acting legally and outraging    
humanity4 ,so we consider a parent      
unjust who does not leave his fortune   
equally among his children4 ,unless     
there should be some special reason  to 
the contrary1 we shall hold him to be   
unfair for making distinctions  out of  
mere preference of one child to another4
 ,yet in the case of  primogeniture our 
opinion would have to be modified4      
,supposing1 for  example1 a state of    
society in which primogeniture was      
generally  recognised as desirable for  
public interests1 we could hardly call a

  man unjust for leaving his estates to 
his eldest son4 ,if1 in such a  state1 a
 man breaks the general rule1 our       
judgment of his conduct would  be       
determined perhaps by considering       
whether he was before or behind  his    
age1 whether he was acting from a keener
 perception of the evils of  inequality 
or actuated by spite or regardless of   
the public interests  which he believed 
to be concerned4 ,a parent treats his   
children equally  in his will in regard 
to money2 but he does not1 unless he is 
a fool1  give the same training or the  
same opening to all his children1       
whether  they are stupid or clever1     
industrious or idle4 ,but what ,i wish  
to  insist upon is1 that justice implies
 essentially indifference to  irrelevant
 considerations1 and therefore1 in many 
cases1 equality in  the treatment of the
 persons concerned4 ,a judge has to     
decide without  reference to bribes1 and
 not be biassed by the position of an   
accused  person4 ,in that sense he      

treats the men equally1 but of course he
 does  not give equal treatment to the  
criminal and innocent1 to the rightful  
and wrongful claimant4    ,the equality 
implied in justice is therefore to be   
understood as an  exclusion of the      
irrelevant1 and thus supposes an        
understanding as to  what is irrelevant4
 ,it is not a mere abstract assertion of
 equality2  but the assertion that1 in a
 given concrete case1 a certain rule is 
to  be applied without considering      
anything outside of the rule4 ,an       
ideally  perfect rule would contain     
within itself a sufficient indication of
  what is to be relevant4 ,all men of   
full age1 sound mind1 and so forth1  are
 to be treated in such and such a way4  
,then all cases falling within  the rule
 are to be decided on the same          
principles1 and in that sense  equally4 
,but the problem remains1 what          
considerations should be taken  into    
account by the rule itself8 ,let us put 
the canon of equality in a  different   

shape1 namely1 that there should always 
be a sufficient  reason for any         
difference in the treatment of our      
fellows4 ,this rule  does not imply that
 ,i should act in all cases as though   
all men were  equal in character or     
mind1 but that my action should in all  
cases be  justified by some appropriate 
consideration4 ,it does not prove that  
every man should have a vote1 but that  
if one man has a vote and  another has  
not1 there should be some adequate      
reason for the  difference4 ,it does not
 prove that every man should work eight 
hours a  day and have a shilling an     
hour2 but that differences of hours or  
of  pay and1 equally1 uniformity of     
hours and pay1 should have some         
sufficient justification4 ,this is a    
deeper principle1 which in some  cases  
justifies and in others does not justify
 the rule of equality4  ,the rule of    
equality follows from it under certain  
conditions1 and has  gained credit      
because1 in point of fact1 those        

conditions have often  been satisfied4  
,the revolutionary demand for equality  
was1 historically speaking1 a  protest  
against arbitrary inequality4 ,it was a 
protest against the  existence of       
privileges accompanied by no duties4    
,when the rich man  could only answer   
the question1 ,what have you done to    
justify your  position8 by the famous   
phrase of ,beaumarchais1 ,i took the    
trouble to  be born1 he was obviously in
 a false position4 ,the demand for a    
society founded upon reason1 in this    
sense that a sufficient reason  should  
be given for all differences1 was1 it   
seems to me1 perfectly  right2 and1     
moreover1 was enough to condemn the then
 established  system4 ,but when this    
demand has been so constructed as to    
twist a  logical rule1 applicable to all
 scientific reasoning1 into a dogmatic  
assertion that certain concrete beings  
were in fact equal1 and to infer  that  
they should have equal rights1 it ceased
 to be logical at all1 and  has been a  

fruitful parent of many fallacies4      
,reasonable beings require  a sufficient
 reason for all differences of conduct1 
for the difference  between their       
treatment of a man and a monkey or a    
white man and a  black1 as well as for  
differences between treatment of rich   
and poor or  wise men and fools2 and    
there must1 as the same principle       
implies1 be  also a sufficient reason   
for treating all members of a given     
class  equally4 ,we have to consider    
whether1 for any given purpose1 the     
differences between human beings and    
animals1 ,englishmen and negroes1  men  
and women1 are or are not of importance 
for our purpose4 ,when the  differences 
are irrelevant we neglect them or admit 
the claim to  equality of treatment4    
,but the question as to relevance is not
 to be  taken for granted either way4   
,it would be a very convenient but a    
very  unjustifiable assumption in many  
cases1 as it might save an astronomer   
trouble if he assumed that every star   

was equal to every other star4    ,the  
application of this is1 ,i think1       
obvious4 ,the  priori  assumption of the
 equality of men is1 in some sense1     
easily refuted4  ,but the refutation    
does not entitle us to assume that      
arbitrary  inequality1 inequality for   
which no adequate ground can be         
assigned1 is  therefore justifiable4 ,it
 merely shows that the problem is more  
complex  than has been assumed at first 
sight4 ,all men ought to be equal4 ,if  
you mean equal in natural capacity or   
character1 it is enough to say  that    
what is impossible cannot be4 ,if you   
propose that the industrious  and idle1 
the good and bad1 the wise and foolish1 
should share equally  in social         
advantages1 the reply is equally        
obvious1 that such a scheme1  if        
possible1 would be injurious to the     
qualities on which human welfare        
depends4 ,if you say that men should be 
rewarded solely according to  their     
intrinsic merits1 we must ask1 do you   

mean to abstract from the  adventitious 
advantages of education1 social         
surroundings1 and so  forth1 or to take 
men as they actually are1 whatever the  
circumstances  to which their           
development is owing8 ,to ask what a man
 would have been  had he been in a      
different position from his youth1 is to
 ask for an  impossible solution1 and   
one1 moreover1 of no practical bearing4 
,i  shall not employ a drunkard if ,i am
 in want of a butler1 whether he has    
become a drunkard under overpowering    
temptation or become a drunkard  from   
inherited dipsomania4 ,but if1 on the   
other hand1 ,i take the man  for what he
 is1 without asking how he has come to  
be what he is1 ,i  leave the source at  
least of all the vast inequalities of   
which we  complain4 ,the difficulty1    
which ,i will not try to develop        
further1  underlies1 as ,i think1 the   
really vital difference of method by    
which  different schools attempt to     
answer the appeal for social justice4   

,the school of so-called individualists 
finds1 in fact1 that equality in  their 
sense is incompatible with the varied   
differences due to the  complete growth 
of the social structure4 ,they look upon
 men simply as  so many independent     
units of varying qualities1 no doubt1   
but still  capable of being considered  
for political and social purposes as    
equal4  ,they ask virtually what justice
 would demand if we had before us a     
crowd of independent applicants for the 
good things of the world1 and  the      
simplest answer is to distribute the    
good things equally4 ,if it is  replied 
that the idle and the industrious should
 not be upon the same  footing1 they are
 ready to agree1 perhaps1 that men      
should be rewarded  according to their  
services to society1 however difficult  
it may be to  arrange the proportions4  
,but it soon appears that the various   
classes  into which society is actually 
divided imply differences not due to the
  individual and his intrinsic merits1  

but to the varying surroundings in      
which he is placed4 ,to do justice1     
then1 it becomes necessary to get  rid  
of these differences4 ,the extreme case 
is that of the family4 ,every  one      
probably owes more to his mother and to 
his early domestic  environment than to 
any other of the circumstances which    
have  influenced his development4 ,if   
you and ,i started as perfectly equal   
babies1 and you have become a saint and 
,i a sinner1 the divergence  probably   
began when our mothers watched our      
cradles1 and was made  inevitable before
 we had left their knees4 ,consequently1
 the more  thorough-going designers of  
,utopia have proposed to abolish this   
awkward difference4 ,men must be        
different at their birth2 but we might  
conceivably arrange public nurseries    
which should place them all under       
approximately equal conditions4 ,then   
any differences would result from  a    
man's intrinsic qualities1 and he might 
be said to be rewarded simply  according

 to his own merits4    ,the plan may be 
tempting1 but has its disadvantages4    
,there are  injustices1 if we call all  
inequality injustice1 which we can only 
attribute to nature or to the unknown   
power which makes men and  monkeys1     
,shakespeares and ,stephens4 ,and one   
result is that the  character and       
conduct of human beings depend to a     
great extent upon  circumstances1 which 
are accidental in the sense that they   
are  circumstances other than the       
original endowment of the individual4   
,in  this sense1 maternal love1 for     
example1 is unjust4 ,the mother loves   
her  child because it is her own1 not   
because it is better 7though of course  
it is better7 than other children4 ,so1 
as ,adam ,smith1 ,i think1  observed1 we
 are more moved by our neighbour's      
suffering from a corn on  his great toe 
than by the starvation of millions in   
,china4 ,in other  words1 the           
affections1 which are the great moving  
forces of society1  are unjust in so far

 as they cause us to be infinitely more 
interested  in our own little circle    
than in the remoter members of humanity 
known  to us only by report4 ,without   
discussing the justice of this          
arrangement1 we shall have1 ,i think1 to
 admit that it is inevitable4  ,for ,i1 
at least1 hold that the vague and vast  
organism of humanity  depends for its   
cohesion upon the affinities and        
attractions1 and not  vice vers4 ,my    
interests are strongest where my power  
of action  is greatest4 ,the love of    
mothers for children is a force of      
essential  value1 and therefore to be   
cultivated rather than repressed1 for no
  force known to us could replace it4   
,and what is pre-eminently true in  this
 case is1 of course1 true to a degree in
 others4 ,burke stated this  with       
admirable force in his attack upon the  
revolutionists who  expounded the       
opposite principle of abstract equality4
 ,to be attached  to the subdivision1 to
 love the little platoon we belong to in

 society1  is the first principle1 he   
says1 the germ1 as it were1 of public   
affections4 ,it is the first link in the
 series by which we proceed  towards a  
love to our country and mankind4 ,the   
assertion that they  desired to invert  
this order1 to destroy every social link
 in so far as  it tended to produce     
inequalities1 was the pith of his great 
indictment  against the ,french         
metaphysical revolutionists4 ,they had  
perverted  the general logical precept  
of the sufficient reason for all        
inequalities by converting it into an   
assuming of the equality of  concrete   
units4 ,they fell into the fallacy of   
which ,i have spoken2 and  many         
radicals1 utilitarians1 and others have 
followed them4 ,they  assumed that all  
the varieties of human character1 or all
 those due to  the influence of the     
social environment1 through whose       
structure and  inherited instincts every
 full-grown man has been moulded1 might 
be  safely disregarded for the purpose  

of political and social  construction4  
,they have spoken1 in brief1 as if men  
were the equal and  homogeneous atoms of
 physical inquiry and social problems   
capable of  solution by a simple        
rearrangement of the atoms in different 
orders1  instead of remembering that    
they are dealing with a complex         
organism1  in which not only the whole  
order but every constituent atom is also
 a  complex structure of indefinitely   
varying qualities4 ,in the recognition  
of this truth lies1 as ,i believe1 the  
true secret of any satisfactory  method 
of treatment4    ,does this fact justify
 inequality in general8 ,or does not the
 principle  of equality still remain as 
essentially implied in the ,utopia which
 we  all desire to construct8 ,we have  
to take it for granted that to each  man
 the first and primary moving instinct  
is and must be the love of  the little  
platoon of which he is a member2 that   
the problem is1 not  to destroy all     
these minor attractions1 to obliterate  

the structure and  replace society by a 
vast multitude of independent atoms1    
each supposed  to aim directly at the   
good of the whole1 but so to harmonise  
and  develop or restrain the smaller    
interests of families1 of groups and    
associations1 that they may             
spontaneously co-operate towards the    
general welfare4 ,it is a long and      
difficult task to which we have to      
apply ourselves2 a task not to be       
effected by the demonstration or        
application of a single abstract dogma1 
but to be worked out gradually  by the  
co-operation of many classes and of many
 generations4 ,if it is  fairly solved  
in the course of a thousand years or so1
 ,i for one shall  be very fairly       
satisfied4 ,but distant as the          
realisation may be1 we may  or rather   
ought to consider seriously the end to  
which we should be  working4 ,the       
conception implies a distinction of     
primary importance  towards any clear   
treatment of the problem4 ,we have1 that

 is1 two  different1 though not         
altogether distinct1 provinces of what  
,i may1  perhaps1 call organic and      
functional morality4 ,we may take the   
existing  order for granted1 and ask    
what is then our duty2 or we may ask how
 far  the structure itself requires     
modification1 and1 if so1 what kind of  
modification4 ,a man who assumes the    
existence of the present structure  may 
act justly or unjustly within the limits
 so prescribed4 ,he must  generally be  
guided in a number of cases by some     
principle of equality4  ,the judge      
should endeavour to give the same law to
 rich and poor2 the  parent should not  
make arbitrary distinctions between his 
children2 the  statesman should try to  
distribute his burdens without favouring
 one  particular class1 and so forth4 ,a
 man who1 in such a sense1 acts justly  
may be described as up to the level of  
his age and its accepted  established   
moral ideas1 and is1 therefore1 entitled
 at least to the  negative praise of not

 being corrupt or dishonest4 ,he fulfils
  accurately the functions imposed upon 
him1 and is not governed by what        
,bentham called the sinister interests  
which would prevent them from  being    
effectually discharged for the welfare  
of the community4 ,but the  problem     
which we have to consider is the deeper 
and more difficult one  of organic      
justice2 and our question is what       
justice means in this  case1 or what are
 the irrelevant considerations to be    
excluded from our  motives of conduct4  
,between these two classes of justice   
there are distinctions which it is      
necessary to state briefly4 ,justice1 as
 we generally use the word1  implies    
that the unjust man deserves to be      
hanged1 or1 at least1 is  responsible   
for his actions4 ,what responsibility   
precisely implies  is1 of course1 a     
debatable question4 ,i only need assume 
that1 in any  case1 it implies that     
somebody is guilty of wrong-doing1 for  
which he  should receive an appropriate 

penalty4 ,but in organic questions it is
  not the individual1 but the race which
 is responsible2 and we require a       
reform1 not a penalty4 ,an impatient    
temper leads us to generalise too       
hastily from the case of the individual 
to that of the country4 ,we  bestow the 
blame for all the wrongs of an oppressed
 nation1 for  example1 upon the nation  
which oppresses4 ,but in simple point of
 fact1  the oppressed nation generally  
deserves 7if the word can be fairly     
used7 to share the blame4 ,the trodden  
worm would not have been trodden  upon  
if it had been a bit of a viper4        
,whatever the duty of turning the       
second cheek1 it is clearly not a       
national duty4 ,if we admire a ,tell or 
,robert ,bruce for resisting oppressors1
 we implicitly condemn those who        
submitted to oppressors4 ,if a nation is
 divided or wanting in courage1  public 
spirit1 and independence1 it will be    
trampled down2 and though  we may most  
rightfully blame the tramplers1 it is   

idle to exonerate the  trampled4 ,it is 
easy1 in the same way1 to make the rich 
solely  responsible for all the misery  
of the poor4 ,the man who has got the   
booty is naturally regarded as the      
robber4 ,but1 speaking  scientifically1 
that is1 with the desire to state the   
plain facts1 we  must admit that if the 
poor are those who have gone to the wall
 in the  struggle for wealth2 then1     
whatever unjust weapons have been used  
in  that struggle1 the improvidence and 
vice and idleness have certainly  been  
among the main causes of defeat4 ,here1 
as before1 the question is  not1 who is 
to be punished8 ,we can only settle that
 when dealing with  individual cases4   
,it is the question1 what is the cause  
of certain  evils8 and here we must     
resist the temptation of supposing that 
the  class which in some sense appears  
to profit by them1 or1 at least1 to  be 
exempt from them1 has1 therefore1 any   
more to do with bringing them  about    
than the class which suffers from them4 

,the reflection may put us in mind of   
what seems to be a general law4  ,the   
ultimate cause of the adoption of       
institutions and rules of conduct  is   
often the fact of their utility to the  
race2 but it is only at a  later period 
that their utility becomes the conscious
 or avowed reason  for maintaining them4
 ,the political fabric has been clearly 
built up1  in great part1 by purely     
selfish ambition4 ,nations have been    
formed by  energetic rulers1 who had no 
eye for anything beyond the             
gratification  of their own ambition1   
although they were clear-headed enough  
to see  that their own ambition could   
best secure its objects by taking the   
side of the stronger social forces1 and 
by giving substantial benefit  to       
others4 ,the same holds good            
pre-eminently of industrial relations4  
,we all know how ,adam ,smith1 sharing  
the philosophical optimism of his  time1
 showed how the pursuit of his own      
welfare by each man tended1 by  a kind  

of pre-ordained harmony1 to contribute  
to the welfare of all4  ,since his time 
we have ceased to be so optimistic1 and 
have recognised  the fact that the      
building up of modern industrial systems
 has involved  much injury to large     
classes4 ,and yet we may1 ,i think1 in  
great measure  adopt his view4 ,the fact
 that each man was rogue enough to think
 first  of himself and of his own wife  
and family is not a proof or a          
presumption that he did not flourish    
because1 in point of fact1 he was       
contributing 7quite unintentionally     
perhaps7 to the comforts of mankind  in 
general4 ,what we have to reflect is    
that1 while the bare existence  of      
certain institutions gives a strong     
presumption of their utility1  there is 
also a probability that when the utility
 becomes a conscious  aim or a          
consciously adopted criterion of their  
advantage1 they will  require a         
corresponding modification intended to  
secure the advantages  at a minimum cost

 of evil4    ,premising these remarks as
 to the meaning of organic justice1 we  
can  now come to the question of        
equality4 ,justice in its ordinary sense
 may  be regarded from one point of view
 as the first condition of the          
efficiency of the social organ4 ,in     
saying that a judge is just1 we  imply  
that he is so far efficiently           
discharging his part in  society--the   
due application of the law--without     
reference to  irrelevant considerations4
 ,he is a machine which rightly parts   
the  sheep and goats--taking the legal  
definition of goats and  sheep--instead 
of putting some goats into the          
sheepfold1 and vice  vers4 ,that is1 he 
secures the accurate application of the 
purely  legal rule4 ,organic justice    
involves an application of the same     
principle because it equally depends    
upon the exclusion of irrelevant        
considerations4 ,it implies such a      
distribution of functions and of        
maintenance as may secure the greatest  

possible efficiency of society  towards 
some end in itself good4 ,society of    
course may be organised  with great     
efficiency for bad or doubtful ends4 ,a 
purely military  organisation1 however  
admirable for its purpose1 may imply a  
sacrifice  of the highest welfare of the
 nation4 ,assuming1 however1 the        
goodness  of the end1 the greatest      
efficiency is of course desirable4 ,we  
may1 for  our purposes1 assume that the 
efficiency of a nation regarded as a    
society for the production of wealth is 
a desirable end4 ,there are1 of  course1
 many other purposes which must not be  
sacrificed to the  production of wealth4
 ,but power of producing wealth1 meaning
 roughly  whatever contributes to the   
physical support and comfort of the     
nation1  is undoubtedly a necessary     
condition of all other happiness4 ,if we
 all  starve we can have neither art nor
 science nor morality4 ,what ,i mean1   
therefore1 is that a nation is so far   
better as it is able to raise all       

necessary supplies with the least       
expenditure of labour1 leaving aside    
the question how far the superfluous    
forces should be devoted to  raising    
comparative luxuries or to some purely  
religious or moral or  intellectual     
purposes4 ,the perfect industrial       
organisation is1 ,i shall  assume1      
compatible with or rather a condition of
 a perfect organisation  of other kinds4
 ,in the most general terms we have to  
consider what are  the principles of    
social organisation1 which of course    
implies a  certain balance between the  
various organs and a thorough nutrition 
of  all1 while yet we may for a moment  
confine our attention to the purely     
industrial or economic part of the      
question4 ,how1 if at all1 does the     
principle of equality or of social      
justice enter the problem8    ,we may   
assume1 in the first place1 from this   
point of view1 that one  most obvious   
condition is the absence of all purely  
useless structures1  whether of the kind

 which we call survivals or such as may 
be called  parasitic growths4 ,the organ
 which has ceased to discharge          
corresponding functions is simply a drag
 upon the vital forces4 ,when a  class1 
such as the old ,french aristocracy1    
ceases to perform duties  while         
retaining privileges1 it will be        
removed1--too probably1 as in  that     
case1 it will be removed by violent and 
mischievous methods1--if  the society is
 to grow in vigour4 ,the individuals1 as
 ,i have said1 may  or may not deserve  
punishment1 for they are not personally 
responsible  for the general order of   
things2 but they are not unlikely to    
incur  severe penalties1 and what we    
should really hope is that they may be  
in  some way absorbed by judicious      
medical treatment1 instead of extirpated
  by the knife4 ,at the other end of the
 scale1 we have the parasitic  class of 
the beggars or thieves4 ,they1 too1 are 
not personally  responsible for the     
conditions into which they are born4    

,but they are  not only to be pitied    
individually1 but to be regarded1 in the
 mass1 as  involving social disease and 
danger4 ,more words upon that topic are 
quite superfluous1 but ,i may just      
recall the truth that the two evils  are
 directly connected4 ,we hear it often  
said1 and often denied1 that  the rich  
are growing richer and the poor poorer4 
,so far1 however1 as it  is true1 it is 
one version of the very obvious fact    
that where there  are many careless rich
 people1 there will be the best chance  
for the  beggars4 ,the thoughtless      
expenditure of the rich without due     
responsibilities1 provides the steady   
stream of so-called charity1--the       
charity which1 as ,shakespeare 7or      
somebody else7 observes1 is twice       
cursed1 which curses him that gives and 
him that receives2 which is to  the rich
 man as a mere drug to still his        
conscience and offer a  spurious receipt
 in full for his neglect of social      
duties1 and to the  poor man an         

encouragement to live without           
self-respect1 without  providence1 a    
mere hanger-on and dead-weight upon     
society1 and a  standing injury and     
source of temptation to his honest      
neighbours4    ,briefly1 a wholesome    
social condition implies that every     
social organ  discharges a useful       
function2 it renders some service to the
 community  which is equivalent to the  
support which it derives2 brain and     
stomach  each get their due share of    
supply2 and there is a thorough         
reciprocity  between all the different  
members of the body4 ,but what kind of  
equality should be desired in order to  
secure this desirable organic  balance8 
,we have to do1 ,i may remark1 with the 
case of a homogeneous  race4 ,by this ,i
 mean not only that there is no reason  
to suppose that  there is any difference
 between the innate qualities of rich   
and poor1  but that there is the        
strongest reason for believing in an    
equality2  that is to say1 more         

definitely1 that if you took a thousand 
poor  babies and a thousand rich babies1
 and subjected them to the same         
conditions1 they would show great       
individual differences1 but no          
difference traceable to the mere        
difference of class origin4 ,i          
therefore may leave aside such problems 
as might arise in the ,southern  ,states
 of ,america1 or even in ,british       
,india1 where two different races  are  
in presence2 or1 again1 the case of the 
sexes1 where we cannot  assume as       
self-evident1 that the organic          
differences are irrelevant to  political
 or social ends4 ,so far as we are      
concerned1 we may take it  for granted  
that the differences which emerge are   
not due to any causes  antecedent to and
 overriding the differences due to      
different social  positions4 ,if we can 
say justly 7as has been said7 that a    
poor man is  generally more charitable  
in proportion to his means1 or1 again1  
that  he is1 as a rule1 a greater liar  

or a greater drunkard than the rich     
man1 the difference is not due to a     
difference of breed1 but to the         
education 7in the widest sense7 which   
each has received4 ,so long as  that    
difference remains1 we must take account
 of it for purposes of  obtaining the   
maximum efficiency4 ,we must not make   
the poor man a  professor of            
mathematics1 or even manager of a       
railway1 because he has  talents which1 
if trained1 would have qualified him for
 the post2 but  we may and must assume  
that an equal training would do as much 
for the  poor man as for the rich2 and  
the question is1 how far it is desirable
  or possible to secure such equality4  
,now1 from the point of view of securing
 a maximum efficiency1 it seems  to be a
 clearly desirable end that the only    
qualities which should  indisputably    
help to determine a man's position in   
life1 should also be  those which       
determine his fitness for working in it 
efficiently4 ,in  ,utopia1 it should be 

the rule that each man shall do what he 
can do  best4 ,if one man is a          
gamekeeper and another a prime minister1
 it  should be because one has the gifts
 of a gamekeeper and the other the      
gifts of a prime minister3 whereas1 in  
the actual state1 as we all  know1 the  
gamekeeper often becomes the prime      
minister1 while the  potential prime    
minister is limited to looking after    
poachers4 ,but ,i  also urge that we    
must take into account the actual and   
not the  potential qualities at any     
given moment4 ,the inequality may be    
obviated  by raising the grade of       
culture in all classes2 but we must not 
assume  that there is an actual equality
 where1 in fact1 there is the widest    
possible difference4 ,in short1 ,i      
assert that it is our duty to try to    
make men equal2 though ,i deny that we  
are clearly justified in assuming  an   
equality4 ,by making them equal1 ,i do  
not1 of course1 mean that we  should try
 to make them all alike4 ,i recognise1  

with ,mill and every  sensible writer on
 the subject1 that such a consummation  
represents  rather a danger than an     
advantage4 ,i wish to see individuality 
strengthened1 not crushed1 to encourage 
men to develop the widest  possible     
diversity of tastes1 talents1 and       
pursuits1 and to attain  unity of       
opinion1 not by a calm assumption that  
this or that creed is  true1 but by     
encouraging the sharpest and freest     
collision of opinions4  ,the equality of
 which ,i speak is that which would     
result1 if the  distinction into organs 
were not of such a nature as to make one
 class  more favourable than another to 
the full development of whatever        
character and talents a man may possess4
 ,in other words1 the  distribution into
 classes would correspond purely and    
simply to the  telling off of each man  
to the duties which he is best fitted to
  discharge4 ,the position into which he
 is born1 the class surroundings  which 
determine his development1 must not     

carry with them any  disqualification   
for his acquiring the necessary aptitude
 for any other  position4 ,it was1 ,i   
think1 ,fourier who argued that a man   
ought to be  paid more highly for being 
a chimney-sweep than for being a prime  
minister1 because the duties of a sweep 
are the more disagreeable1--a  position 
which some prime ministers may1 perhaps1
 see reason to doubt4  ,my suggestion   
is1 that in ,utopia every human being   
would be so placed  as to be capable of 
preparing himself for any other         
position1 and  should then go to the    
work for which he is best fitted4 ,the  
equality as  thus defined would1 ,i     
submit1 leave no room for a sense of    
injustice1  because the qualities which 
determine a man's position would be the 
qualities for which he deserves the     
position1 desert in this sense  being   
measurable by fitness4 ,discontent with 
class distinctions must  arise so long  
as a man feels that his position in a   
class limits and  cramps his capacities 

below the level of happier fortunes4    
,discontent  is not altogether a bad    
thing1 for it is often an alias for     
hope2 remove all discontent and you     
remove all guarantee for  improvement4  
,but discontent is of the malignant     
variety when it is  allied with a sense 
of injustice2 that is1 of restrictions  
imposed upon  one class for no          
assignable reason4 ,the only sufficient 
reason for  classes is the efficient    
discharge of social functions4 ,the     
differences  between the positions of   
men in social strata1 supply some of the
 most  effective motives for the        
struggle of life2 and the effort of men 
to  rise into the wealthy or the        
powerful class is not likely to cease so
  long as men are men2 but they take an 
unworthy form so long as the  ambition  
is simply to attain privileges          
unconnected with or  disproportioned to 
the duties involved1 and which therefore
 generate  hatred to the social         
structure4 ,if a class could be simply  

an organ for  the discharge of certain  
functions1 and each man in the whole    
body  politic able to fit himself for   
that class1 the injustice1 and          
therefore the malignant variety of      
discontent1 would disappear4 ,of        
course1 ,i am speaking only of justice4 
,i do not attempt to define the  proper 
ends of society1 or regard justice in   
itself as a sufficient  guarantee for   
all desirable results4 ,such justice may
 exist even in a  savage tribe or a low 
social type4 ,there may be a just       
distribution of  food among a           
shipwrecked crew1 but the attainment of 
such justice would  not satisfy all     
their wants4 ,the abolition of misery1  
the elevation of  a degraded class to a 
higher stage is a good thing in itself1 
unless it  can be shown to involve some 
counterbalancing evil4 ,i only argue    
that  the ideal society would have this1
 among other attributes1 and1           
therefore1 that to secure such equality 
is a legitimate object of  aspiration4  

,i am speaking of ,utopia4 ,the time is 
indefinitely distant when a man  will   
choose to be a sweep or a prime minister
 according to his  aptitudes1 and be    
equally able to learn his trade whether 
he is the son  of a prime minister or a 
sweep4 ,i only try to indicate the goal 
to  which our efforts should be         
directed4 ,but the goal thus defined    
implies  methods different from that of 
some advocates of equality4 ,they       
propose  at once to assume the          
non-existence of a disagreeable         
difficulty1 and  to take men as equal in
 a sense in which they are not1 in fact1
 equal4  ,to me the problem appears to  
be1 not the instant introduction of a   
new  system1 but a necessarily long and 
very gradual process of education       
directed towards the distant goal of    
making men equal in the desirable       
sense2 and that problem1 ,i add1 is in  
the main a moral problem4 ,it is  idle  
to make institutions without making the 
qualities by which they  must be worked4

 ,i do not say--far from it--that we are
 not to propose  what may roughly be    
called external changes3 new regulations
 and new  forms of association1 and so  
forth4 ,on the contrary1 ,i believe1 as 
,i  have intimated1 that this method    
corresponds to the normal order of      
development4 ,the new institution       
protects and stimulates the germs of    
the moral instincts by which it must be 
worked4 ,but ,i also hold that no  mere 
rearrangement does any permanent good   
unless it calls forth a  corresponding  
moral change1 and1 moreover1 that the   
moral change1  however slow and         
imperceptible1 does incomparably more   
than any  external change4    ,if we    
assume our present institutions to be   
permanent1 a slight  improvement in     
moral qualities1 a growth of sobriety1  
of chastity1 of  prudence and           
intellectual culture1 would make an     
almost indefinite  improvement in the   
condition of the masses4 ,if1 for       
example1 ,englishmen  ceased to drink1  

every ,english home might be made       
reasonably  comfortable4 ,the two kinds 
of change imply each other2 but it is   
the  most characteristic error of the   
designers of ,utopias to suppose a mere 
change of regulations without           
sufficiently attending to the moral     
implication4 ,to attain equality1 as ,i 
have tried to define the word1  would   
imply vast moral changes1 and therefore 
a long and difficult  elaboration4 ,we  
have not simply to make men happy1 as   
they now count  happiness1 but to alter 
their views of happiness4 ,the good old 
copy-books tell us that happiness is as 
common in poor men's huts as in  rich   
men's palaces4 ,we are apt to reply that
 the statement is a mockery  and a lie4 
,but it points to the consummation which
 in some simple  social states has been 
partly realised1 and which in some      
distant  future may come to be an       
expression of facts4 ,it is conceivable 
surely  that rich men may some day find 
that there are modes of occupation      

which are more interesting as well as   
more useful than accumulation of        
luxuries or the keeping of horses for   
the turf2 that1 in place of             
propitiating fate by supporting the     
institution of beggary1 there is an     
indefinite field for public-spirited    
energy in the way not of throwing       
crumbs to ,lazarus1 but of promoting    
national culture of mind1 of  spirit1   
and of body2 that benevolence does not  
mean simple  self-sacrifice1 except to  
the selfish1 but the pursuit of a noble 
and  most interesting career2 that men's
 duty to their children is not to       
enable them to lead idle lives1 but to  
fit them for playing a manly  part in   
the great game of life2 and that their  
relation to those whom  they employ is  
not that of persons exploiting the      
energies of inferior  animals1 but of   
leaders of industry with a common       
interest in the  prosperity of their    
occupation4 ,people1 no doubt1 will     
hardly pursue  business from motives of 

pure benevolence to others1 and ,i do   
not think  it desirable that they       
should4 ,but the recognition that the   
pursuit of  an honourable business is   
useful to others may1 nevertheless1     
guide  their energies1 make the mere    
scramble for wealth disreputable1 and   
induce them to labour for solid and     
permanent advantages4 ,such moral       
changes are1 ,i conceive1 necessary     
conditions of the equality of which  ,i 
have spoken2 they must be brought about 
to some extent if the  industrial       
organism is to free itself from the     
injustice necessarily  implied in a mere
 blind struggle for personal comfort4   
,moreover1 however distant the final    
consummation may be1 there are1 ,i      
think1 many indications of an           
approximation4 ,nothing is more         
characteristic of modern society than   
the enormous development of the  power  
of association for particular purposes4 
,in former days a society  had to form  
an independent organ1 a corporation1 a  

college1 and so  forth1 to discharge any
 particular function1 and the resulting 
organ  was so distinct as to absorb the 
whole life of its members4 ,the work of 
the fellow was absorbed in the corporate
 life of his corporation1 and  he had no
 distinct personal interests4 ,now we   
are all members of  societies by the    
dozen1 and society is constantly        
acquiring the art of  forming           
associations for any purpose1 temporary 
or permanent1 which  imply no deep      
structural division1 and unite people of
 all classes and  positions4 ,as the    
profounder lines are obliterated1 the   
tendency to  form separate castes1      
defended by personal privileges1 and    
holding  themselves apart from other    
classes1 rapidly diminishes2 and the    
corresponding prejudices are in process 
of diminution4 ,but ,i can only  hint at
 this principle4    ,a correlative moral
 change in the poor is1 of course1      
equally  essential4 ,america is         
described by ,mr4 ,lowell in the noblest

 panegyric  ever made upon his own      
country1 as ,she that lifts up the      
manhood of  the poor4 ,she has taken    
some rather queer methods of securing   
that  object lately2 yet1 however       
imperfect the result1 every ,american   
traveller will1 ,i believe1 sympathise  
with what ,mr4 ,bryce has recently  said
 in his great book4 ,america is still   
the land of hope--the land  where the   
poor man's horizon is not bounded by a  
vista of inevitable  dependence on      
charity2 where--in spite of some        
superficially grotesque  results--every 
man can speak to every other without the
 oppressive  sense of condescension2    
where a civil word from a poor man is   
not  always a covert request for a      
gratuity and a tacit confession of      
dependence4 ,alas1 says ,wordsworth1 in 
one of his pregnant phrases1  the       
gratitude of men has oftener left me    
mourning than their  cold-heartedness2  
because1 ,i presume1 it is a painful    
proof of the  rarity of kindness4 ,when 

one man can only receive a gift and     
another  can only bestow it as a payment
 on account of a long accumulation of   
the arrears of class injustice1 the     
relations hardly admit of genuine       
gratitude on either side4 ,what grates  
most painfully upon me1 and1 ,i         
suppose1 upon most of us1 is the        
servility of man2 the acceptance of  a  
beggar's code of morals as natural and  
proper for any one in a shabby  coat4   
,the more prominent evil just now1      
according to conservatives and          
pessimists1 is the correlative one of   
the beggar on horseback2 of the  man who
 has found out that he can squeeze more 
out of his masters1 and  uses his power 
even without considering whether it is  
wise to drain  your milch cow too       
exhaustively4    ,a hope of better      
things is encouraged by schemes for     
arbitration and  conciliation between   
employers and employed4 ,but we require 
a moral  change if arbitration is to    
imply something more than a truce       

between  natural enemies1 and           
conciliation to be something different  
from that  employed by ,hood's butcher  
when1 after hauling a sheep by main     
force  into the slaughter-house1 he     
exclaimed1 ,there1 ,i've conciliated    
him6 ,the only principle on which       
arbitration can proceed is  that the    
profits should be divided in such a way 
as to be a sufficient  inducement to all
 persons concerned to give their money  
or their  labour1 mental or physical1 to
 promote the prosperity of the business 
at large4 ,but the reconciliation can   
only be complete when the  capitalist is
 capable of employing his riches with   
enough public spirit  and generosity to 
disarm mere envy by his obvious utility1
 and the poor  man justifies his        
increased wages by his desire to secure 
permanent  benefits and a better        
standard of life4 ,in ,utopia1 the      
question will  still be1 what plan shall
 be a sufficient inducement to the men  
who  co-operate as employers or         

labourers1 but the inducement will      
appeal to  better motives1 and the      
positions be so far equalised that each 
will be  most tolerable to the man best 
fitted for it4    ,here a vast series of
 problems opens about which ,i can only 
suggest the  briefest hint4 ,the        
principle ,i now urge is the old one1   
namely1 that  the usual mark of a quack 
remedy is the neglect of the moral      
aspect of  a question4 ,we want a state 
of opinion in which the poor are not    
objects to be slobbered over1 but men to
 help in a manly struggle for  moral as 
well as material elevation4 ,a great    
deal is said1 for example1  about the   
evils of competition4 ,it is remarkable 
indeed that few  proposals for          
improvement even1 so far as ,i can      
discover1 tend to get  rid of           
competition4 ,co-operation1 as tradesmen
 will tell us1 is not an  abolition of  
competition1 but a competition of groups
 instead of units4  ,profit-sharing is  
simply a plan by which workmen may take 

a direct  share in the competition      
carried on by their masters4 ,i do not  
mention  this as any objection to such  
schemes1 for ,i do not think that       
competition is an evil4 ,i do not doubt 
the vast utility of schemes  which tend 
to increase the intelligence and        
prudence of workmen1 and  give them an  
insight into the conditions of          
successful business4  ,competition is no
 doubt bad so far as it means cheating  
or gambling4  ,but competition is1 it   
seems to me1 inevitable so long as we   
are forced  to apply the experimental   
method in practical life1 and ,i fail to
 see  what other method is available4   
,competition means that thousands of    
people all over the world are trying to 
find out how they can supply  more      
economically and efficiently the wants  
of other people1 and that  is a state of
 things to which ,i do not altogether   
object4 ,equality in  my sense implies  
that every one should be allowed to     
compete for every  place that he can    

fill4 ,the cry is merely1 as it seems to
 me1 an  evasion of the fundamental     
difficulty4 ,that difficulty is not that
  people compete1 but that there are too
 many competitors2 not that a  man's    
seat at the table has to be decided by  
fair trial of his  abilities1 but that  
there is not room enough to seat        
everybody4 ,malthus  brought to the     
front the great stumbling-block in the  
way of ,utopian  optimism4 ,his theory  
was stated too absolutely1 and his view 
of the  remedy was undoubtedly crude4   
,but he hit the real difficulty2 and    
every  sensible observer of social evils
 admits that the great obstacle to      
social improvement is that social       
residuum1 the parasitic class1 which    
multiplies so as to keep down the       
standard of living1 and turns to bad    
purposes the increased power of man over
 nature4 ,we have abolished  pestilence 
and famine in their grimmest shape2 if  
we have not abolished  war1 it no longer
 involves usurpation or slavery or the  

permanent  desolation of the conquered2 
but one result is just this1 that great 
masses can be regularly kept alive at   
the lowest stage of existence  without  
being periodically swept away by a black
 death or a horde of  brutal invaders4  
,if we choose to turn our advantages to 
account in this  way1 no nostrums will  
put an end to poverty2 and the evil can 
only be  met--as ,i venture to          
assume--by an elevation of the moral    
level1  involving all that is implied in
 spreading civilisation downward4       
,the difficulty shows itself in         
discussions of the proper sphere of     
government4 ,upon that vast and most    
puzzling topic ,i will only permit      
myself one remark4 ,in former times the 
great aim of reformers was the          
limitation of the powers of government4 
,they came to regard it as a  kind of   
bogy or extra-natural force1 which acted
 to oppress the poor in  order to       
maintain certain personal privileges4   
,some1 like ,godwin of the  ,political  

,justice1 held that the millennium      
implied the abolition of  government and
 the institution of anarchy4 ,the early 
utilitarians held  that government might
 be reformed by placing power in the    
hands of the  subjects1 who would use it
 only for their own interests1 but still
  retained the prejudices engendered in 
their long struggle against  authority1 
and held that its functions should still
 be gradually  restricted on pain of    
developing a worse tyranny than the old4
 ,the  government has been handed over  
to the people as they desired1 but with 
the natural result that the new         
authorities not only use it to support  
their interests1 but retain the         
conviction of its extra-natural1 or     
perhaps supernatural1 efficacy4 ,it is  
regarded as an omnipotent body  which   
can not only say 7as it can7 that       
whatever it pleases shall be  legal1 but
 that whatever is made a law in the     
juridical sense shall at  once become a 
law of nature4 ,even their individualist

 opponents1 who  profess to follow ,mr4 
,herbert ,spencer1 seem often to regard 
the power  of government1 not as one    
result of evolution1 but as something   
external which can constrain and limit  
evolution4 ,it corresponds to a  kind of
 outside pressure which interferes      
arbitrarily with the  so-called natural 
course of development1 and should       
therefore be  abolished4 ,to me1 on the 
contrary1 it seems that government is   
simply  one of the social organs1 with  
powers strictly limited by its relation 
to others and by the nature of the      
sentiment upon which it rests4 ,there   
are obvious reasons1 in the             
centralisation of vast industrial       
interests1 the integration1 as ,mr4     
,spencer calls it1 which is the         
correlative of differentiation1 in the  
growing solidarity of different  classes
 and countries1 in the consequent growth
 of natural monopolies1  which give a   
solid reason for believing that the     
functions of the  central government may

 require expansion4 ,to decide by any   
priori principle what should be the     
limits of this expansion is1 to  my     
mind1 hopeless4 ,the problem is one to  
be worked out by  experiment1--that is1 
by many generations and by repeated     
blundering4 ,a  fool1 said ,erasmus     
,darwin1 is a man who never makes an    
experiment2 an  experiment is a new mode
 of action which fails in its object    
ninety-nine times out of a hundred2     
therefore1 wise men make more  blunders1
 though they also make more discoveries 
than fools4 ,now1  experiments in       
government and social organisation are  
as necessary to  improvement as any     
other kind of experiment1 and probably  
still more  liable to failure4 ,one     
thing1 however1 is again obvious4 ,the  
simple  remedy of throwing everything   
upon government1 of allowing it to      
settle  the rate of wages1 the hours of 
labour1 the prices of commodities1 and  
so forth1 requires for success a moral  
and intellectual change which it  is    

impossible to over-estimate4 ,i will not
 repeat the familiar  arguments which1  
to my mind1 justify this statement4 ,it 
is enough to  say that there is no      
ground in the bare proposal for putting 
all manner  of industrial regulations   
into the hands of government1 for       
supposing  that it would not drag down  
every one into pauperism instead of     
raising  everybody to comfort4 ,i often 
read essays of which the weakness seems 
to be that while they purpose to        
establish equality1 they give no real   
reason for holding that it would not be 
an equality of beggary4 ,if  every one  
is to be supported1 idle or not1 the    
natural conclusion is  universal        
pauperism4 ,if people are to be forced  
to work by government1  or their numbers
 to be somehow restricted by government1
 you throw a  stress upon the powers of 
government which1 ,i will not say1 it is
  impossible that it should bear1 but   
which1 to speak in the most  moderate   
terms1 implies a complete reconstruction

 of the intelligence1  morality1 and    
conceptions of happiness of human       
beings4 ,your government  would have to 
be omniscient and purely benevolent as  
well as  omnipotent1 and ,i confess that
 ,i cannot see in the experience of     
those  countries where the people have  
the most direct influence upon the      
government1 any promise that this state 
of things will be realised just  yet4   
,thus1 ,i return to my conclusion1--to  
my platitude1 if you will4  ,professor  
,fawcett used to say that he could lay  
down no rules for the  sphere of        
government influence1 except this rule1 
that no interference  would do good     
unless it helped people to help         
themselves4 ,i think that  the doctrine 
was characteristic of his good sense1   
and ,i fully  subscribe to it4 ,i       
heartily agree that equality in the     
sense ,i have  given1 is a most         
desirable ideal2 ,i agree that we should
 do all that in  us lies to promote it2 
,i only say that our aims should be     

always in  consistence with the         
principle that such equality is only    
possible and  desirable in so far as the
 lowest classes are lifted to a higher  
standard1 morally as well as physically4
 ,of course1 that implies  approval of  
every variety of new institutions and   
laws1 of  co-operation1 of profit       
sharing1 of boards of conciliation1 of  
educational and other bodies for        
carrying light into darkness and        
elevating popular standards of life3 but
 always with the express  condition that
 no such institution is really useful   
except as it tends  to foster a genuine 
spirit of independence1 and to supply   
the moral  improvement without which no 
outward change is worth a button4 ,this 
is  a truism1 you may say4 ,yet1 when ,i
 read the proposals to get rid of       
poverty by summarily ordering people to 
be equal1 or to extirpate  pauperism by 
spending a million upon certain         
institutions for out-door  relief1 ,i   
cannot help thinking that it is a truism

 which requires to be  enforced4 ,the   
old ,political ,economy1 you say1 is    
obsolete2 meaning1  perhaps1 that you do
 not mean to be bothered with its       
assertions2 but  the old ,economists had
 their merits4 ,they were among the     
first who  realised the vast importance 
of deeper social questions2 they were   
the  first who tried to treat them      
scientifically2 they were not 7,i hope7 
the last who dared to speak unpleasant  
truths1 simply because they  believed   
them and believed in their importance4  
,perhaps1 indeed1 they  rather enjoyed  
the practice a little too much1 and     
indulged in it a  little too            
ostentatiously4 ,yet1 ,i am sure that1  
on the whole1 it was a  very useful     
practice1 and one which is now scarcely 
as common as it  should be4 ,people are 
more anxious to pick holes in their     
statement of  economic laws than to     
insist upon the essential fact that1    
after all1  there are laws1 not laws    
made by ,parliament1 but laws of nature1

  which do1 and will1 determine the     
production and distribution of  wealth1 
and the recognition of which is as      
important to human welfare  as the      
recognition of physiological laws to the
 bodily health4 ,holding  this faith1   
the old ,economists were never tired of 
asserting what is  the fundamental truth
 of so-called individualism1 that1 after
 all we  may say about the social       
development1 the essential condition of 
all  social improvement is not that we  
should have this or that system of      
regulations1 but that the individual    
should be manly1 self-respecting1  doing
 his duty as well as getting his pay1   
and deeply convinced that  nothing will 
do any permanent good which does not    
imply the elevation  of the individual  
in his standards of honesty1            
independence1 and good  conduct4 ,we can
 only say to ,lazarus3 ,you are probably
 past praying  for1 and all we can do is
 to save you from starving1 by any means
 which  do not encourage other people to

 fall into your weaknesses2 but we      
recognise the right of your class for   
any and every possible help that  can be
 given towards making men of them1 and  
putting them on their legs  by teaching 
them to stand upright4          ,,ethics
 ,,and ,,the ,,struggle ,,for           
,,existence4      ,in his               
deeply-interesting ,romanes lecture1    
,professor ,huxley has stated  the      
opinion that the ethical progress of    
society depends upon our  combating the 
cosmic process which we call the        
struggle for  existence4 ,since1 as he  
adds1 we inherit the cosmic nature which
 is  the outcome of millions of years of
 severe training1 it follows that  the  
ethical nature may count upon having to 
reckon with a tenacious  and powerful   
enemy as long as the world lasts4 ,this 
is not a cheerful  prospect4 ,it is1 as 
he admits1 an audacious proposal to pit 
the  microcosm against the macrocosm4   
,we cannot help fearing that the        
microcosm may get the worst of it4      

,professor ,huxley has not fully        
expanded his meaning1 and says much to  
which ,i could cordially  subscribe4    
,but ,i think that the facts upon which 
he relies admit or  require an          
interpretation which avoids the awkward 
conclusion4    ,pain and suffering1 as  
,professor ,huxley tells us1 are always 
with us1  and even increase in quantity 
and intensity as evolution advances4    
,the  fact had been recognised in remote
 ages long before theories of  evolution
 had taken their modern form4           
,pessimism1 from the time of the        
ancient ,hindoo philosophers to the time
 of their disciple1  ,schopenhauer1 has 
been in no want of evidence to support  
its melancholy  conclusions4 ,it would  
be idle to waste rhetoric in the attempt
 to  recapitulate so familiar a         
position4 ,though ,i am not a pessimist1
 ,i  cannot doubt that there is more    
plausibility in the doctrine than ,i    
could wish4 ,moreover1 it may be granted
 that any attempt to explain or  to     

justify the existence of evil is        
undeniably futile4 ,it is not so  much  
that the problem cannot be answered1 as 
that it cannot even be  asked in any    
intelligible sense4 ,to explain a fact  
is to assign its  causes--that is1 to   
give the preceding set of facts out of  
which it  arose4 ,however far we might  
go backwards1 we should get no nearer to
  perceiving any reason for the original
 fact4 ,if we explain the fall of  man  
by ,adam's eating the apple1 we are     
quite unable to say why the  apple      
should have been created4 ,if we could  
discover a general theory  of pain1     
showing1 say1 that it implied certain   
physiological  conditions1 we shall be  
no nearer to knowing why those          
physiological  conditions should have   
been what they are4 ,the existence of   
pain1 in  short1 is one of the primary  
data of our problem1 not one of the     
accidents1 for which we can hope in any 
intelligible sense to account4  ,to give
 any justification is equally           

impossible4 ,the book of ,job  really   
suggests an impossible1 one may almost  
say a meaningless1  problem4 ,we can    
give an intelligible meaning to a demand
 for justice  when we can suppose that a
 man has certain antecedent rights1     
which  another man may respect or       
neglect4 ,but this has no meaning as    
between  the abstraction nature and the 
concrete facts which are themselves     
nature4 ,it is unjust to meet equal     
claims differently4 ,but it is not      
unjust in any intelligible sense that   
one being should be a monkey  and       
another a man1 any more than that part  
of me should be a hand and  another     
head4 ,the question would only arise if 
we supposed that the man  and the monkey
 had existed before they were created1  
and had then  possessed claims to equal 
treatment4 ,the most logical            
theologians1  indeed1 admit that as     
between creature and creator there can  
be  properly no question of justice4    
,the pot and the potter cannot complain 

of each other4 ,if the writer of ,job   
had been able to show that the  virtuous
 were rewarded and the vicious punished1
 he would only have  transferred the    
problem to another issue4 ,the judge    
might be justified1  but the creator    
would be condemned4 ,how can it be just 
to place a being  where he is certain to
 sin1 and then to damn him for sinning8 
,that is  the problem to which no answer
 can be given2 and which already implies
  a confusion of ideas4 ,we apply the   
conception of justice in a sphere  where
 it is not applicable1 and naturally    
fail to get any intelligible  answer4   
,it is impossible to combine the        
conceptions of ,god as the creator and  
,god as the judge2 and the logical      
straits into which the attempt leads    
are represented by the endless free-will
 controversy4 ,i will not now  enter    
that field of controversy3 and ,i will  
only indicate what seems to  me to be   
the position which we must accept in any
 scientific discussion  of our problem4 

,hume1 as ,i think1 laid down the true  
principle when he  said that there could
 be no  priori proof of a matter of     
fact4  ,an  priori truth is a truth     
which cannot be denied without          
self-contradiction1 but there can never 
be a logical consideration in  supposing
 the non-existence of any fact whatever4
 ,the ordinary appeal  to the truths of 
pure mathematics is1 therefore1 beside  
the question4  ,all such truths are     
statements of the precise equivalence of
 two  propositions4 ,to say that there  
are four things is also to say that     
there are two pairs of things3 to say   
that there is a plane triangle is  also 
to say that there is a plane trilateral4
 ,one statement involves  the other1    
because the difference is not in the    
thing described1 but in  our mode of    
contemplating it4 ,we1 therefore1 cannot
 make one assertion  and deny the other 
without implicit contradiction4 ,from   
such results1  again1 is evolved 7in the
 logical sense of evolution7 the whole  

vast  system of mathematical truths4    
,the complexity of that system gives the
  erroneous idea that we can1 somehow1  
attain a knowledge of facts1            
independently of experience4 ,we fail to
 observe that even the most  complex    
mathematical formula is simply a        
statement of an exact  equivalence of   
two assertions2 and that1 till we know  
by experience the  truth of one         
statement1 we can never infer the truth1
 in fact1 of the  other4 ,however       
elaborate may be the evolutions of      
mathematical truth1  they can never get 
beyond the germs out of which they are  
evolved4 ,they  are valid precisely     
because the most complex statement is   
always the  exact equivalent of the     
simpler1 out of which it is constructed4
 ,they  remain to the end truths of     
number or truths of geometry4 ,they     
cannot1  by themselves1 tell us that    
things exist which can be counted or    
which  can be measured4 ,the whole      
claim1 however elaborate1 still requires

 its  point of suspension4 ,we may put  
their claims to absolute or necessary   
truth as high as we please2 but they    
cannot give us by themselves a  single  
fact4 ,i can show1 for example1 that a  
circle has an infinite  number of       
properties1 all of which are virtually  
implied in the very  existence of a     
circle4 ,but that the circle or that    
space itself exists1  is not a necessary
 truth1 but a datum of experience4 ,it  
is quite true  that such truths are not1
 in one sense1 empirical2 they can be   
discovered without any change of        
experience2 for1 by their very nature1  
they refer to the constant element of   
experience1 and are true on the         
supposition of the absolute             
changelessness of the objects           
contemplated4  ,but it is a fallacy to  
suppose that1 because independent of    
particular  experiences1 they are1      
therefore1 independent of experience in 
general4    ,now1 if we agree1 as       
,huxley would have agreed1 that ,hume's 

doctrine is  true1 if we cannot know a  
single fact except from experience1 we  
are  limited in moral questions1 as in  
all others1 to elaborating and          
analysing our experience1 and can never 
properly transcend it4 ,a  scientific   
treatment of an ethical question1 at any
 rate1 must take for  granted all the   
facts of human nature4 ,it can show what
 morality  actually is2 what are1 in    
fact1 the motives which make men moral1 
and  what are the consequences of moral 
conduct4 ,but it cannot get outside  of 
the universe and lay down moral         
principles independent of all           
influences4 ,i am well aware that in    
speaking of ethical questions upon  this
 ground1 ,i am exposed to many          
expressions of metaphysical contempt4   
,i may hope to throw light upon the     
usual working of morality2 but my       
theory of the facts cannot make men     
moral of itself4 ,i cannot hope1 for    
example1 to show that immorality        
involves a contradiction1 for ,i know   

that immorality exists4 ,i cannot even  
hope to show that it is  necessarily    
productive of misery to the individual1 
for ,i know that  some people take      
pleasure in vicious conduct4 ,i cannot  
deduce facts  from morals1 for ,i must  
consistently regard morals as part of   
the  observed consequences of human     
nature under given conditions4          
,metaphysicians may1 if they can1 show  
me a more excellent method4 ,i  admit   
that their language sometimes enables   
them to take what1 in words  at least1  
is a sublimer position than mine4       
,kant's famous phrase1 ,thou  must1     
therefore thou canst1 is impressive4    
,and yet1 it seems to me to  involve an 
obvious piece of logical juggling4 ,it  
is quite true that  whenever it is my   
duty to act in a certain way1 it must be
 a  possibility2 but that is only       
because an impossibility cannot be a    
duty4 ,it is not my duty to fly1 because
 ,i have not wings2 and  conversely1 no 
doubt1 it would follow that if it were  

my duty ,i  must possess the organs     
required4 ,thus understood1 however1 the
 phrase  loses its sublimity1 and yet1  
it is only because we have so to        
understand it1 that it has any          
plausibility4 ,admitting1 however1 that 
people who differ from me can use       
grander language1 and confessing my     
readiness to admit error whenever they  
can point to a single fact  attainable  
by the pure reason1 ,i must keep to the 
humbler path4 ,i speak  of the moral    
instincts as of others1 simply from the 
point of view of  experience3 ,i cannot 
myself discover a single truth from the 
abstract  principle of                  
non-contradiction2 and am content to    
take for granted that  the world exists 
as we know it to exist1 without seeking 
to deduce its  peculiarities by any high
  priori road4    ,upon this assumption1
 the question really resolves itself    
into a  different one4 ,we can neither  
explain nor justify the existence of    
pain2 but1 of course1 we can ask        

whether1 as a matter of fact1 pain      
predominates over pleasure2 and we can  
ask whether1 as a matter of  fact1 the  
cosmic processes tend to promote or     
discourage virtuous  conduct4 ,does the 
theory of the struggle for existence    
throw any new  light upon the general   
problem8 ,i am quite unable to see1 for 
my own  part1 that it really makes any  
difference3 evil exists2 and the        
question whether evil predominates over 
good1 can only1 ,i should say1  be      
decided by an appeal to experience4 ,one
 source of evil is the  conflict of     
interests4 ,every beast preys upon      
others2 and man1  according to the old  
saying1 is a wolf to man4 ,all that the 
,darwinian  or any other theory can do  
is1 to enable us to trace the           
consequences  of this fact in certain   
directions2 but it neither creates the  
fact nor  makes it more or less an      
essential part of the process4 ,it      
explains  certain phenomena1 in the     
sense of showing their connection with  

previous phenomena1 but does not show   
why the phenomena should present        
themselves at all4 ,if we indulge our   
minds in purely fanciful  constructions1
 we may regard the actual system as good
 or bad1 just as  we choose to imagine  
for its alternative a better or a worse 
system4 ,if  everybody had been put into
 a world where there was no pain1 or    
where  each man could get all he wanted 
without interfering with his            
neighbours1 we may fancy that things    
would have been pleasanter4 ,if the     
struggle1 which we all know to exist1   
had no effect in preventing the         
survival of the fittest1 things--so1 at 
least1 some of us may  think--would have
 been worse4 ,but such fancies have     
nothing to do with  scientific          
inquiries4 ,we have to take things as   
they are and make the  best of them4    
,the common feeling1 no doubt1 is       
different4 ,the incessant struggle      
between different races suggests a      
painful view of the universe1 as        

,hobbes' natural state of war suggested 
painful theories as to human  nature4   
,war is evidently immoral1 we think2 and
 a doctrine which makes  the whole      
process of evolution a process of war   
must be radically  immoral too4 ,the    
struggle1 it is said1 demands ruthless  
self-assertion and the hunting down of  
all competitors2 and such  phrases      
certainly have an unpleasant sound4 ,but
 in the first place1 the  use of the    
epithets implies an anthropomorphism to 
which we have no  right so long as we   
are dealing with the inferior species4  
,we are then  in a region to which such 
ideas have no direct application1 and   
where  the moral sentiments exist only  
in germ1 if they can properly be said   
to exist at all4 ,is it fair to call a  
wolf ruthless because he eats a  sheep  
and fails to consider the transaction   
from the sheep's point of  view8 ,we    
must surely admit that if the wolf is   
without mercy he is also  without       
malice4 ,we call an animal ferocious    

because a man who acted in  the same way
 would be ferocious4 ,but the man is    
really ferocious  because he is really  
aware of the pain which he inflicts4    
,the wolf1 ,i  suppose1 has no more     
recognition of the sheep's feelings than
 a man has  of feelings in the oyster or
 the potato4 ,for him1 they are simply  
non-existent2 and it is just as         
inappropriate to think of the wolf as   
cruel1 as it would be to call the sheep 
cruel for eating grass4 ,are we  to say 
that nature is cruel because the        
arrangement increases the sum  of       
undeserved suffering8 ,that is a problem
 which ,i do not feel able to  examine2 
but it is1 at least1 obvious that it    
cannot be answered  off-hand in the     
affirmative4 ,to the individual sheep it
 matters nothing  whether he is eaten by
 the wolf or dies of disease or         
starvation4 ,he  has to die any way1 and
 the particular way is unimportant4 ,the
 wolf is  simply one of the limiting    
forces upon sheep1 and if he were       

removed  others would come into play4   
,the sheep1 left to himself1 would still
  give a practical illustration of the  
doctrine of ,malthus4 ,if1 as           
evolutionists tell us1 the hostility of 
the wolf tends to improve the  breed of 
sheep1 to encourage him to think more   
and to sharpen his wits1  the sheep may 
be1 on the whole1 the better for the    
wolf1 in this sense  at least3 that the 
sheep of a wolfless region might lead a 
more  wretched existence1 and be less   
capable animals and more subject to     
disease and starvation than the sheep in
 a wolf-haunted region4 ,the  wolf may1 
so far1 be a blessing in disguise4      
,this suggests another obvious remark4  
,when we speak of the struggle for      
existence1 the popular view seems to    
construe this into the theory that  the 
world is a mere cockpit1 in which one   
race carries on an  interminable        
struggle with the other4 ,if the wolves 
are turned in with  the sheep1 the first
 result will be that all the sheep will 

become  mutton1 and the last that there 
will be one big wolf with all the       
others inside him4 ,but this is contrary
 to the essence of the doctrine4  ,every
 race depends1 we all hold1 upon its    
environment1 and the  environment       
includes all the other races4 ,if some1 
therefore1 are in  conflict1 others are 
mutually necessary4 ,if the wolf ate all
 the sheep1  and the sheep ate all the  
grass1 the result would be the          
extirpation of  all the sheep and all   
the wolves1 as well as all the grass4   
,the  struggle necessarily implies      
reciprocal dependence in a countless    
variety of ways4 ,there is not only a   
conflict1 but a system of tacit         
alliances4 ,one species is necessary to 
the existence of others1 though  the    
multiplication of some implies also the 
dying out of particular  rivals4 ,the   
conflict implies no cruelty1 as ,i have 
said1 and the  alliance no goodwill4    
,the wolf neither loves the sheep       
7except as  mutton7 nor hates him2 but  

he depends upon him as absolutely as if 
he  were aware of the fact4 ,the sheep  
is one of the wolf's necessaries of     
life4 ,when we speak of the struggle for
 existence we mean1 of course1  that    
there is at any given period a certain  
equilibrium between all the  existing   
species2 it changes1 though it changes  
so slowly that the  process is          
imperceptible and difficult to realise  
even to the  scientific imagination4    
,the survival of any species involves   
the  disappearance of rivals no more    
than the preservation of allies4 ,the   
struggle1 therefore1 is so far from     
internecine that it necessarily         
involves co-operation4 ,it cannot even  
be said that it necessarily  implies    
suffering4 ,people1 indeed1 speak as    
though the extinction of a  race        
involved suffering in the same way as   
the slaughter of an  individual4 ,it is 
plain that this is not a necessary1     
though it may  sometimes be the actual  
result4 ,a corporation may be suppressed

 without  injury to its members4 ,every 
individual will die before long1        
struggle  or no struggle4 ,if the rate  
of reproduction fails to keep up with   
the  rate of extinction1 the species    
must diminish4 ,but this might happen   
without any increase of suffering4 ,if  
the boys in a district discovered  how  
to take birds' eggs1 they might soon    
extirpate a species2 but it  does not   
follow that the birds would individually
 suffer4 ,perhaps they  would feel      
themselves relieved from a disagreeable 
responsibility4 ,the  process by which a
 species is improved1 the dying out of  
the least fit1  implies no more         
suffering than we know to exist         
independently of any  doctrine as to a  
struggle4 ,when we use anthropomorphic  
language1 we may  speak of              
self-assertion4 ,but self-assertion1    
minus the  anthropomorphism1 means      
self-preservation2 and that is merely a 
way of  describing the fact that an     
animal or plant which is well adapted to

  its conditions of life is more likely 
to live than an animal which is         
ill-adapted4 ,i have some difficulty in 
imagining how any other  arrangement can
 even be supposed possible4 ,it seems to
 be almost an  identical proposition    
that the healthiest and strongest will  
generally  live longest2 and the        
conception of a struggle for existence  
only  enables us to understand how this 
results in certain progressive          
modifications of the species4 ,if we    
could ever for a moment have  fancied   
that there was no pain and disease1 and 
that some beings were  not more liable  
than others to those evils1 ,i might    
admit that the new  doctrine has made   
the world darker4 ,as it is1 it seems to
 me that it  leaves the data just what  
they were before1 and only shows us that
 they  have certain previously          
unsuspected bearings upon the history of
 the  world4    ,one other point must be
 mentioned4 ,not only are species       
interdependent  as well as partly in    

competition1 but there is an absolute   
dependence  in all the higher species   
between its different members which may 
be  said to imply a de facto altruism1  
as the dependence upon other  species   
implies a de facto co-operation4 ,every 
animal1 to say  nothing else1 is        
absolutely dependent for a considerable 
part of its  existence upon its parents4
 ,the young bird or beast could not grow
 up  unless its mother took care of it  
for a certain period4 ,there is1        
therefore1 no struggle as between mother
 and progeny2 but1 on the  contrary1 the
 closest possible alliance4 ,otherwise1 
life would be  impossible4 ,the young   
being defenceless1 their parents could  
exterminate them if they pleased1 and by
 so doing would exterminate the  race4  
,the parental relation1 of course1      
constantly involves a partial  sacrifice
 of the mother to her young4 ,she has to
 go through a whole  series of          
operations1 which strain her own        
strength and endanger her  own          

existence1 but which are absolutely     
essential to the continuance of  the    
race4 ,it may be anthropomorphic to     
attribute any maternal emotions  of the 
human kind to the animal4 ,the bird1    
perhaps1 sits upon her eggs  because    
they give her an agreeable sensation1   
or1 if you please1 from a  blind        
instinct which somehow determines her to
 the practice4 ,she does  not look      
forward1 we may suppose1 to bringing up 
a family1 or speculate  upon the        
delights of domestic affection4 ,i only 
say that as a fact she  behaves in a way
 which is at once injurious to her own  
chances of  individual survival1 and    
absolutely necessary to the survival of 
the  species4 ,the abnormal bird who    
deserts her nest escapes many dangers2  
but if all birds were devoid of the     
instinct1 the birds would not  survive a
 generation4    ,now1 ,i ask1 what is   
the difference which takes place when   
the monkey  gradually loses his tail and
 sets up a superior brain8 ,is it       

properly  to be described as a          
development or improvement of the cosmic
  process1 or as the beginning of a     
prolonged contest against it8    ,in the
 first place1 so far as man becomes a   
reasonable being1 capable  of foresight 
and of the adoption of means to ends1 he
 recognises the  nature of these tacit  
alliances4 ,he believes it to be his    
interest not  to exterminate everything1
 but to exterminate those species alone 
whose  existence is incompatible with   
his own4 ,the wolf eats every sheep that
  he comes across as long as his        
appetite lasts4 ,if there are too many  
wolves1 the process is checked by the   
starvation of the supernumerary  eaters4
 ,man can maintain just as many sheep as
 he wants1 and may also  proportion the 
numbers of his own species to the       
possibilities of  future supply4 ,many  
of the lower species thus become        
subordinate parts  of the social        
organism--that is to say1 of the new    
equilibrium which  has been established4

 ,there is so far a reciprocal          
advantage4 ,the sheep  that is preserved
 with a view to mutton gets the         
advantage1 though he  is not kept with a
 view to his own advantage4 ,of all     
arguments for  vegetarianism1 none is so
 weak as the argument from humanity4    
,the pig  has a stronger interest than  
any one in the demand for bacon4 ,if all
  the world were ,jewish1 there would be
 no pigs at all4 ,he has to pay for  his
 privileges by an early death2 but he   
makes a good bargain of it4 ,he  dies   
young1 and1 though we can hardly infer  
the love of the gods1 we  must admit    
that he gets a superior race of beings  
to attend to his  comforts1 moved by the
 strongest possible interest in his     
health and  vigour1 and induced by its  
own needs1 perhaps1 to make him a little
 too  fat for comfort1 but certainly    
also to see that he has a good sty1 and 
plenty to eat every day of his life4    
,other races1 again1 are extirpated  as 
ruthlessly as in the merely instinctive 

struggle for existence4 ,we  get rid of 
wolves and snakes as well as we can1 and
 more systematically  than can be done  
by their animal competitors4 ,the       
process does not  necessarily involve   
cruelty1 and certainly does not involve 
a  diminution of the total of happiness4
 ,the struggle for existence means  the 
substitution of a new system of         
equilibrium1 in which one of the  old   
discords has been removed1 and the      
survivors live in greater  harmony4 ,if 
the wolf is extirpated as an internecine
 enemy1 it is that  there may be more   
sheep when sheep have become our allies 
and the  objects of our earthly         
providence4 ,the result may be1 perhaps 
,i might  say must be1 a state in which1
 on the whole1 there is a greater amount
  of life supported on the planet2 and  
therefore1 as those will think who  are 
not pessimists1 a decided gain on the   
balance4 ,at any rate1 the  difference  
so far is that the condition which was  
in all cases  necessary1 is now         

consciously recognised as necessary2 and
 that we  deliberately aim at a result  
which always had to be achieved on      
penalty  of destruction4 ,so far1 again1
 as morality can be established on      
purely  prudential grounds1 the same    
holds good of relations between human   
beings themselves4 ,men begin to        
perceive that1 even from a purely       
personal point of view1 peace is        
preferable to war4 ,if war is unhappily 
still prevalent1 it is at least not war 
in which every clan is fighting  with   
its neighbours1 and where conquest means
 slavery or extirpation4  ,millions of  
men are at peace within the limits of a 
modern ,state1 and  can go about their  
business without cutting each other's   
throats4 ,when  they fight with other   
nations they do not enslave nor massacre
 their  prisoners4 ,starting from the   
purely selfish ground ,hobbes could     
prove  conclusively that everybody      
benefited by the social compact which   
substituted peace and order for the     

original state of war4 ,is this1  then1 
a reversal of the old state of things--a
 combating of a cosmic  process8 ,i     
should rather say that it is a          
development of the tacit  alliances1 and
 a modification so far of the direct or 
internecine  conflict4 ,both were       
equally implied in the older conditions1
 and both  still exist4 ,some races form
 alliances1 while others are crowded out
 of  existence4 ,of course1 ,i cease to 
do some things which ,i should have     
done before4 ,i don't attack the first  
man ,i meet in the street and take  his 
scalp4 ,one reason is that ,i don't     
expect he will take mine2 for1 if  ,i   
did1 ,i fear that1 even as a civilised  
being1 ,i should try to  anticipate his 
intentions4 ,this merely means that we  
have both come to  see that we have a   
common interest in keeping the peace4   
,and this1  again1 merely means that the
 tacit alliance which was always an     
absolutely necessary condition of the   
survival of the species has now  been   

extended through a wider area4 ,the     
species could not have got on  at all if
 there had not been so much alliance as 
is necessary for its  reproduction and  
for the preservation of its young for   
some years of  helplessness4 ,the change
 is simply that the small circle which  
included  only the primitive family or  
class has extended1 so that we can meet 
members of the same nation1 or1 it may  
be1 of the same race1 on terms  which   
were previously confined to the minor   
group4 ,we have still to  exterminate   
and still to preserve4 ,the mode of     
employing our energies  has changed1 but
 not the essential nature4 ,morality    
proper1 however1  has so far not        
emerged4 ,it begins when sympathy       
begins2 when we really  desire the      
happiness of others2 or1 as ,kant says1 
when we treat other  men as an end and  
not simply as a means4 ,undoubtedly this
 involves a  new principle1 no less than
 the essential principle of all true    
morality4 ,still1 ,i have to ask whether

 it implies a combating or a            
continuation of a cosmic process4 ,now1 
as ,i have observed1 even the  animal   
mother shows what ,i have called a de   
facto altruism4 ,she  has instincts     
which1 though dangerous to the          
individual1 are essential  for the race4
 ,the human mother sacrifices herself   
with a consciousness  of the results to 
herself1 and her personal fears are     
overcome by the  strength of her        
affections4 ,she intentionally endures a
 painful death  to save them from       
suffering4 ,the animal sacrifices       
herself1 but without  foresight of the  
result1 and therefore without moral     
worth4 ,this is  merely the most        
striking exemplification of the general 
process of the  development of morality4
 ,conduct is first regarded purely with 
a view  to the effects upon the agent1  
and is therefore enforced by extrinsic  
penalties1 by consequences1 that is1    
supposed to be attached to us by  the   
will of some ruler1 natural or          

supernatural4 ,the instinct which  comes
 to regard such conduct as bad in       
itself1 which implies a dislike  of     
giving pain to others1 and not merely a 
dislike to the gallows1  grows up under 
such probation until the really         
moralised being acquires  feelings which
 make the external penalty superfluous4 
,this1  indubitably1 is the greatest of 
all changes1 the critical fact which    
decides whether we are to regard conduct
 simply as useful1 or also to  regard it
 as moral in the strictest sense4 ,but  
,i should still call it a  development  
and not a reversal of the previous      
process4 ,the conduct  which we call    
virtuous is the same conduct externally 
which we before  regarded as useful4    
,the difference is that the simple fact 
of its  utility1 that is1 of its utility
 to others and to the race in general1  
has now become also the sufficient      
motive for the action as well as the    
implicit cause of the action4 ,in the   
earlier stages1 when no true  sympathy  

existed1 men and animals were still     
forced to act in a certain  way because 
it was beneficial to others4 ,they now  
act in that way  because they are       
conscious that it is beneficial to      
others4 ,the whole  history of moral    
evolution seems to imply this4 ,we may  
go back to a  period at which the moral 
law is identified with the general      
customs of  the race2 at which there is 
no perception of any clear distinction  
between that which is moral and that    
which is simply customary2 between  that
 which is imposed by a law in the strict
 sense and that which is  dictated by   
general moral principles4 ,in such a    
state of things1 the  motives for       
obedience partake of the nature of blind
 instincts4 ,no  definite reason for    
them is present to the mind of the      
agent1 and it  does not occur to him    
even to demand a reason4 ,our fathers   
did so and  we do so is the sole and    
sufficient explanation of their conduct4
 ,thus  instinct again may be traced    

back by evolutionists to the earliest   
period at which the instincts implied in
 the relations between the  sexes or    
between parents and offspring1 existed4 
,they were the germ  from which has     
sprung all morality such as we now      
recognise4    ,morality1 then1 implies  
the development of certain instincts    
which are  essential to the race1 but   
which may1 in an indefinite number of   
cases1  be injurious to the individual4 
,the particular mother is killed because
  she obeys her natural instincts2 but1 
if it were not for mothers and  their   
instincts1 the race would come to an    
end4 ,professor ,huxley speaks  of the  
fanatical individualism of our time as  
failing to construct  morality from the 
analogy of the cosmic process4 ,an      
individualism which  regards the cosmic 
process as equivalent simply to an      
internecine  struggle of each against   
all1 must certainly fail to construct a 
satisfactory morality upon such terms1  
and ,i will add that any  individualism 

which fails to recognise fully the      
social character1  which regards society
 as an aggregate instead of an organism1
 will1 in  my opinion1 find itself in   
difficulties4 ,but ,i also submit that  
the  development of the instincts which 
directly correspond to the needs of  the
 race1 is merely another case in which  
we aim consciously at an end  which was 
before an unintentional result of our   
actions4 ,every race1  above the lowest1
 has instincts which are only           
intelligible by the  requirements of the
 race2 and has both to compete with some
 and to form  alliances with others of  
its fellow occupants of the planet4     
,both in  the unmoralised condition and 
in that in which morality has become    
most  developed1 these instincts have   
common characteristics1 and may be      
regarded as conditions of the power of  
the race to which they belong to        
maintain its position in the world1 and1
 speaking roughly1 to preserve  or      
increase its own vitality4    ,i will   

not pause to insist upon this so far as 
regards many qualities  which are       
certainly moral1 though they may be said
 to refer primarily  to the individual4 
,that chastity and temperance1          
truthfulness and  energy1 are1 on the   
whole1 advantages both to the individual
 and to the  race1 does not1 ,i fancy1  
require elaborate proof2 nor need ,i    
argue at  length that the races in which
 they are common will therefore have    
inevitable advantages in the struggle   
for existence4 ,of all qualities  which 
enable a race to hold its own1 none is  
more important than the  power of       
organising individually1 politically1   
and socially1 and that  power implies   
the existence of justice and the        
instinct of mutual  confidence-in short1
 all the social virtues4 ,the difficulty
 seems to be  felt in regard to those   
purely altruistic impulses1 which1 at   
first  glance at any rate1 make it      
apparently our duty to preserve those   
who  would otherwise be unfit to live4  

,virtue1 says ,professor ,huxley1 is    
directed not so much to the survival of 
the fittest1 as to the  fitting of as   
many as possible to survive4 ,i do not  
dispute the  statement1 ,i think it true
 in a sense2 but ,i have a difficulty as
 to  its application4    ,morality1 it  
is obvious1 must be limited by the      
conditions in which we  are placed4     
,what is impossible is not a duty4 ,one 
condition plainly is  that the planet is
 limited4 ,there is only room for a     
certain number of  living beings2 and   
though we may determine what shall be   
the number1 we  cannot arbitrarily say  
that it shall be indefinitely great4 ,it
 is one  consequence that we do1 in     
fact1 go on suppressing the unfit1 and  
cannot help going on suppressing them4  
,is it desirable that it should  be     
otherwise8 ,should we wish1 for example1
 that ,america could still be  a        
hunting-ground for savages8 ,is it      
better that it should contain a  million
 red men or sixty millions of civilised 

whites8 ,undoubtedly the  moralist will 
say with absolute truth that the methods
 of extirpation  adopted by ,spaniards  
and ,englishmen were detestable4 ,i need
 not say  that ,i agree with him1 and   
hope that such methods may be abolished 
wherever any remnant of them exists4    
,but ,i say so partly because ,i        
believe in the struggle for existence4  
,this process underlies morality1  and  
operates whether we are moral or not4   
,the most civilised race1 that  which   
has the greatest knowledge1 skill1 power
 of organisation1 will1 ,i  hold1 have  
an inevitable advantage in the struggle1
 even if it does not  use the brutal    
means which are superfluous as well as  
cruel4 ,all the  natives who lived in   
,america a hundred years ago would be   
dead now in  any case1 even if they had 
invariably been treated with the        
greatest  humanity1 fairness1 and       
consideration4 ,had they been unable to 
suit  themselves to new conditions of   
life1 they would have suffered an       

euthanasia instead of a partial         
extirpation2 and had they suited        
themselves they would either have been  
absorbed or become a useful part  of the
 population4 ,to abolish the old brutal 
method is not to abolish  the struggle  
for existence1 but to make the result   
depend upon a higher  order of qualities
 than those of the mere piratical       
viking4    ,mr4 ,pearson has been       
telling us in his most interesting book1
 that the  negro may not improbably hold
 his own in ,africa4 ,i cannot say ,i   
regard  this as an unmixed evil4 ,why   
should there not be parts of the world  
in  which races of inferior intelligence
 or energy should hold their own8 ,i  am
 not so anxious to see the whole earth  
covered by an indefinite  multiplication
 of the cockney type4 ,but ,i only quote
 the suggestion for  another reason4    
,till recent years the struggle for     
existence was  carried on as between    
,europeans and negroes by simple        
violence and  brutality4 ,the slave     

trade and its consequences have         
condemned the  whole continent to       
barbarism4 ,that1 undoubtedly1 was part 
of the  struggle for existence4 ,but1 if
 ,mr4 ,pearson's guess should be        
verified1  the results have been so far 
futile as well as disastrous4 ,the negro
  has been degraded1 and yet1 after all 
our brutality1 we cannot take his       
place4 ,therefore1 besides the enormous 
evils to slave-trading countries        
themselves1 the lowering of their moral 
tone1 the substitution of  piracy for   
legitimate commerce1 and the degradation
 of the countries  which bought the     
slaves1 the superior race has not even  
been able to  suppress the inferior4    
,but the abolition of this monstrous    
evil does  not involve the abolition but
 the humanisation of the struggle4 ,the 
white man1 however merciful he becomes1 
may gradually extend over such  parts of
 the country as are suitable to him2 and
 the black man will  hold the rest and  
acquire such arts and civilisation as he

 is capable  of appropriating4 ,the     
absence of cruelty would not alter the  
fact that  the fittest race would       
extend2 but it may ensure that whatever 
is good  in the negro may have a chance 
of development in his own sphere1 and   
that success in the struggle will be    
decided by more valuable  qualities4    
,without venturing further into a rather
 speculative region1 ,i need only       
indicate the bearing of such            
considerations upon problems nearer     
home4  ,it is often complained that the 
tendency of modern civilisation is to   
preserve the weakly1 and therefore to   
lower the vitality of the race4  ,this  
seems to involve inadmissible           
assumptions4 ,in the first place1 the   
process by which the weaker are         
preserved consists in suppressing       
various conditions unfavourable to human
 life in general4 ,sanitary             
legislation1 for example1 aims at       
destroying the causes of many of the    
diseases from which our forefathers     

suffered4 ,if we can suppress the       
smallpox1 we of course save many weakly 
children1 who would have died  had they 
been attacked4 ,but we also remove one  
of the causes which  weakened the       
constitutions of many of the survivors4 
,i do not know by  what right we can say
 that such legislation1 or again1 the   
legislation  which prevents the         
excessive labour of children1 does more 
harm by  preserving the weak than it    
does good by preventing the weakening of
  the strong4 ,one thing is at any rate 
clear3 to preserve life is to  increase 
the population1 and therefore to        
increase the competition2 or1  in other 
words1 to intensify the struggle for    
existence4 ,the process is  as broad as 
it is long4 ,if we could be sure that   
every child born  should grow up to     
maturity1 the result would be to double 
the severity  of the competition for    
support1 ,what we should have to show1  
therefore1  in order to justify the     
inference of a deterioration due to this

  process1 would be1 not that it simply 
increased the number of the  candidates 
for living1 but that it gave to the     
feebler candidates a  differential      
advantage2 that they are now more fitted
 than they were  before for ousting     
their superior neighbours from the      
chances of  support4 ,but ,i can see no 
reason for supposing such a consequence 
to be  probable or even possible4 ,the  
struggle for existence1 as ,i have      
suggested1 rests upon the unalterable   
facts that the world is limited  and    
population elastic4 ,under all          
conceivable circumstances we shall      
still have in some way or other to      
proportion our numbers to our  supplies2
 and under all circumstances those who  
are fittest by reason  of intellectual  
or moral or physical qualities will have
 the best  chance of occupying good     
places1 and leaving descendants to      
supply the  next generation4 ,it is     
surely not less true that in the        
civilised as  much as in the most       

barbarous race1 the healthiest are the  
most likely  to live1 and the most      
likely to be ancestors4 ,if so1 the     
struggle will  still be carried on upon 
the same principles1 though certainly in
 a  different shape4    ,it is true that
 this suggests one of the most difficult
 questions of  the time4 ,it is         
suggested1 for example1 that in some    
respects the  highest specimens of the  
race are not the healthiest or the      
fittest4  ,genius1 according to some    
people1 is a variety of disease1 and    
intellectual power is won by a          
diminution of reproductive power4 ,a    
lower race1 again1 if we measure high   
and low by intellectual  capacity1 may  
oust a higher race1 because it can      
support itself more  cheaply1 or1 in    
other words1 because it is more         
efficient for  industrial purposes4     
,without presuming to pronounce upon    
such  questions1 ,i will simply ask     
whether this does not interpret         
,professor  ,huxley's remark about that 

cosmic nature which is still so strong1 
and which is likely to be strong so long
 as men require stomachs4 ,we  have not1
 ,i think1 to suppress it1 but to adapt 
it to new  circumstances4 ,we are       
engaged in working out a gigantic       
problem3 ,what  is the best1 in the     
sense of the most efficient1 type of    
human being8  ,what is the best         
combination of brains and stomach8 ,we  
turn out saints1  who are too good to   
live1 and philosophers1 who have run too
 rapidly  to brains4 ,they do not answer
 in practice1 because they are          
instruments  too delicate for the rough 
work of daily life4 ,they may give us a 
foretaste of qualities which will be    
some day possible for the average  man2 
of intellectual and moral qualities1    
which1 though now  exceptional1 may     
become commonplace4 ,but the best stock 
for the race  are those in whom we have 
been lucky enough to strike out the     
happy  combination1 in which greater    
intellectual power is produced without  

the loss of physical vigour4 ,such men1 
it is probable1 will not deviate  so    
widely from the average type4 ,the      
reconciliation of the two  conditions   
can only be effected by a very gradual  
process of slowly  edging onwards in the
 right direction4 ,meanwhile the theory 
of a  struggle for existence justifies  
us1 instead of condemning us1 for       
preserving the delicate child1 who may  
turn out to be a ,newton or a  ,keats1  
because he will leave to us the         
advantage of his discoveries or  his    
poems1 while his physical feebleness    
assures us that he will not  propagate  
his race4    ,this may lead to a final  
question4 ,does the morality of a race  
strengthen or weaken it2 fit it to hold 
its own in the general  equilibrium1 or 
make its extirpation by low moral races 
more probable8  ,i do not suppose that  
anybody would deny what ,i have already 
suggested1  that the more moral the     
race1 the more harmonious and the better
  organised1 the better it is fitted for

 holding its own4 ,but if this be       
admitted1 we must also admit that the   
change is not that it has ceased  to    
struggle1 but that it struggles by      
different means4 ,it holds its  own1 not
 merely by brute force1 but by justice1 
humanity1 and  intelligence1 while1 it  
may be added1 the possession of such    
qualities  does not weaken the brute    
force1 where such a quality is still    
required4 ,the most civilised races are1
 of course1 also the most  formidable in
 war4 ,but1 if we take the opposite     
alternative1 ,i must ask  how any       
quality which really weakens the        
vitality of the race can  properly be   
called moral4 ,i should entirely        
repudiate any rule of  conduct which    
could be shown to have such a tendency4 
,this1 indeed1  indicates what seems to 
me to be the moral difficulty with most 
people4  ,charity1 you say1 is a virtue2
 charity increases beggary1 and so far  
tends to produce a feebler population2  
therefore1 a moral quality tends  doubly

 to diminish the vigour of a nation4    
,the answer is1 of course1  obvious1 and
 ,i am confident that ,professor ,huxley
 would have so far  agreed with me4 ,it 
is that all charity which fosters a     
degraded class  is therefore immoral4   
,the fanatical individualism of to-day  
has its  weaknesses2 but in this matter 
it seems to me that we see the weakness 
of the not less fanatical collectivism4 
,the question1 in fact1 how far any of  
the socialistic or ethical  schemes of  
to-day are right or wrong1 depends upon 
our answer to the  question how far they
 tend to produce a vigorous or an       
enervated  population4 ,if ,i am asked  
to subscribe to ,general ,booth's       
scheme1 ,i  inquire first whether the   
scheme is likely to increase or diminish
 the  number of helpless hangers-on upon
 the efficient part of society4 ,will   
the whole nation consist in larger      
proportions of active and  responsible  
workers1 or of people who are simply    
burdens upon the real  workers8 ,the    

answer decides not only the question    
whether it is  expedient1 but also the  
question whether it is right or wrong1  
to  support the proposed scheme4 ,every 
charitable action is so far a good      
action that it implies sympathy for     
suffering2 but if it is so much in  want
 of prudence that it increases the evil 
which it means to remedy1  it becomes   
for that reason a bad action4 ,to       
develop sympathy without  developing    
foresight is just one of the one-sided  
developments which  fail to constitute a
 real advance in morality1 though ,i    
will not deny  that it may incidentally 
lead to an advance4    ,i hold1 then1   
that the struggle for existence belongs 
to an  underlying order of facts to     
which moral epithets cannot be properly 
applied4 ,it denotes a condition of     
which the moralist has to take  account1
 and to which morality has to be        
adapted2 but which1 just  because it is 
a cosmic process1 cannot be altered1    
however much we  may alter the conduct  

which it dictates4 ,under all           
conceivable  circumstances1 the race has
 to adapt itself to the environment1 and
  that necessarily implies a conflict as
 well as an alliance4 ,the  preservation
 of the fittest1 which is surely a good 
thing1 is merely  another aspect of the 
dying out of the unfit1 which is hardly 
a bad  thing4 ,the feast which ,nature  
spreads before us1 according to         
,malthus's  metaphor1 is only sufficient
 for a limited number of guests1 and the
  one question is how to select them4   
,the tendency of morality is to         
humanise the struggle1 to minimise the  
suffering of those who lose the  game2  
and to offer the prizes to the qualities
 which are advantageous  to all1 rather 
than to those which increase and        
intensify the  bitterness of the        
conflict4 ,this implies the growth of   
foresight1 which  is an extension of the
 earlier instinct1 and enables men to   
adapt  themselves to the future and to  
learn from the past1 as well as to act  

up to immediate impulse of present      
events4 ,it implies still more the      
development of the sympathy which makes 
every man feel for the hurts of  all1   
and which1 as social organisation is    
closer1 and the dependence of  each     
constituent atom upon the whole         
organisation is more vividly  realised1 
extends the range of a man's interests  
beyond his own private  needs4 ,in that 
sense1 again1 it must stimulate         
collectivism at the  expense of a crude 
individualism1 and condemns the doctrine
 which1 as  ,professor ,huxley puts it1 
would forbid us to restrain the member  
of a  community from doing his best to  
destroy it4 ,to restrain such conduct   
is surely to carry on the conflict      
against all anti-social agents or       
tendencies4 ,for ,i should certainly    
hold any form of collectivism to be     
immoral which denied the essential      
doctrine of the abused  individualist1  
the necessity1 that is1 for individual  
responsibility4  ,we have surely to     

suppress the murderer1 as our ancestors 
suppressed  the wolf4 ,we have to       
suppress both the external enemies1 the 
noxious  animals whose existence is     
incompatible with our own1 and the      
internal  enemies which are injurious   
elements in the society itself4 ,that   
is1 we  have to work for the same end of
 eliminating the least fit4 ,our methods
  are changed2 we desire to suppress    
poverty1 not to extirpate the poor  man4
 ,we give inferior races a chance of    
taking whatever place they are  fit for1
 and try to supplant them with the least
 possible severity if  they are unfit   
for any place4 ,but the suppression of  
poverty supposes  not the confiscation  
of wealth1 which would hardly suppress  
poverty in  the long run1 nor even the  
adoption of a system of living which    
would  enable the idle and the          
good-for-nothing to survive4 ,the       
progress of  civilisation depends1 ,i   
should say1 on the extension of the     
sense of  duty which each man owes to   

society at large4 ,that involves such a 
constitution of society that1 although  
we abandon the old methods of  hanging  
and flogging and shooting down--methods 
which corrupted the  inflicters of      
punishment by diminishing their own     
sense of  responsibility--may give an   
advantage to the prudent and            
industrious1  and make it more probable 
that they will be the ancestors of the  
next  generation4 ,a system which should
 equalise the advantages of the         
energetic and the helpless would begin  
by demoralising1 and would very  soon   
lead to an unprecedented intensification
 of the struggle for  existence4 ,the   
probable result of a ruthless socialism 
would be the  adoption of very severe   
means for suppressing those who did not 
contribute their share of work4 ,but1 in
 any case1 as it seems1 we never  get   
away or break away from the inevitable  
fact4 ,if individual ends  could be     
suppressed1 if every man worked for the 
good of society as  energetically as for

 his own1 we should still feel the      
absolute  necessity of proportioning the
 whole body to the whole supplies       
obtainable from the planet1 and to      
preserve the equilibrium of mankind     
relatively to the rest of nature4 ,that 
day is probably distant2 but  even upon 
that hypothesis the struggle for        
existence would still be  with us1 and  
there would be the same necessity for   
preserving the  fittest and killing out1
 as gently as might be1 those who were  
unfit4