580 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



which social cooperation implies, they will become less lit for mutual 

 dependence and cooperation the society will tend toward dissolution. 

 While, in proportion as they are habituated to antagonism and to 

 destructive activities, they will become better adapted to activities 

 requiring union and agreement. 



Thus the two opposite codes in which we are educated, and the 

 sentiments enlisted on behalf of their respective precepts, inevitably 

 produce misinterpretations of social phenomena. Instead of acting 

 together, now this and now the other sways the beliefs ; and, instead 

 of consistent, balanced conclusions, there results a jumble of contra- 

 dictory conclusions. 



It is time, not only with a view to right thinking in social science, 

 but with a view to right acting in daily life, that this acceptance in 

 their unqualified forms, of two creeds which contradict one another 

 completely, should come to an end. Is it not a folly to go on pretend- 

 ing to ourselves and others that we believe certain perpetually-repeat- 

 ed maxims of entire self-sacrifice, which we daily deny by our business 

 activities, by the steps we take to protect our persons and property, 

 by the approval we express of resistance against aggression ? Is it 

 not a dishonesty to repeat, in tones of reverence, maxims which we 

 not only refuse to act out, but dimly see would be mischievous if act- 

 ed out ? Every one must admit that the relation between parent and 

 child is one in which altruism is pushed as far as is practicable. Yet 

 even here there needs a predominant egoism. The mother can suckle 

 her infant only on condition that she has habitually gratified her appe- 

 tite in due degree. And there is a point beyond which sacrifice of 

 herself is fatal to her infant. The bread-winner, too, on whom both 

 depend is it not undeniable that wife and child can be altruistically 

 treated by their protector, only on condition that he is duly egoistic 

 in his transactions with his fellow-citizens ? If the dictate, "Live for 

 self," is wrong in one way, the opposite dictate, " Live for others," is 

 wrong in another way. The rational dictate is live for self and oth- 

 ers. And, if we all do actually believe this, as our conduct conclu- 

 sively proves, is it not better for us distinctly to say so, rather than 

 continue enunciating principles which we do not and cannot practise ; 

 and thus bringing moral teaching itself into discredit ? 



On the other hand, it is time that a ferocious egoism, which re- 

 mains unaffected by this irrational altruism, hppocritically professed 

 but not believed, should be practically modified by a rational altruism. 

 This "sacred duty of blood-revenge, insisted on by the still-vigorous 

 religion of enmity, needs qualifying actually and not verbally. In- 

 stead of senselessly reiterating in catechisms and church services the 

 duty of doing good to those that hate us, while an undoubting belief 

 in the duty of retaliation is implied by our parliamentary debates, the 

 articles in our journals, and the conversations over our tables, it would 



