CORRESP ONDENCE. 



265 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



PRESIDENT HILL'S DEFENSE. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



DEAR, SIR : In the April number of 

 your magazine you say that a sen- 

 tence quoted from me by Bishop Vincent 

 in The Chautauquan " is absolutely without 

 foundation." The objectionable sentence is, 

 " Some counselors, like Herbert Spencer, ad- 

 vise us to follow our own self-interest, with- 

 out concern for others, with the assurance 

 that all will thus be happier, because more 

 independent." The quotation is made from 

 my volume of lectures on The Social Influ- 

 ence of Christianity. It is I rather than 

 Bishop Vincent who should " either justify 

 the above statement in regard to Mr. Spen- 

 cer or withdraw it." My respect for Mr. 

 Spencer's ability as a thinker and his sin- 

 cerity as a man is so great that I should 

 certainly withdraw a statement that I felt 

 misrepresented him to those who may not 

 share my high opinion of him. In seeking 

 to render justice to Mr. Spencer, I trust you 

 will not apply the lex talionis to those who 

 may seem to you to do him wrong. 



The sentence which you condemn as " ab- 

 solutely without foundation " occurs after a 

 criticism of " undiscriminating charity" in 

 the distribution of wealth, and the citation 

 of a case where the literal interpretation of 

 Christ's words, " Give to him that asketh 

 thee," led to the demoralization of a parish. 

 In antithesis to this extreme I name Mr. 

 Spencer as a representative of what I con- 

 sider the opposite extreme — the emphasis of 

 egoism. Of course, I do not mean that Mr. 

 Spencer advocates an absolute and unquali- 

 fied selfishness, taking no account of the 

 rights of others. His teaching is, that there 

 is a u permanent supremacy of egoism over 

 altruism " ; that " each creature shall take 

 the benefits and the evils of his own nature, 

 be they derived from ancestry or those due 

 to self - produced modifications," and that 

 " egoistic claims must take precedence of 

 altruistic claims" (Data of Ethics, pp. 186, 

 187, 189). He advances two suppositions : 

 (1) "that each citizen pursues his own hap- 

 piness independently, not to the detriment 

 of others, but without active concern for 

 others " ; and (2) " that each, instead of 

 making his own happiness the object of 

 pursuit, makes the happiness of others the 

 object of pursuit"; and argues that the 

 amount of happiness would not be greater 

 in the second case (Data of Ethics, p. 227). 

 He sees " inconsistency " in the doctrine ex- 

 pressed in the Christian maxim — " Love 

 your neighbor as yourself " (Data of Ethics, 

 p. 233). His conclusion is that "general 

 happiness is to be achieved mainly through 

 the adequate pursuit of their own happiness- 



es by individuals ; while, reciprocally, the 

 happinesses of individuals are to be achieved 

 in part by their pursuit of the general hap- 

 piness " (Data of Ethics, p. 238). Is not the 

 center of concern here for each one his own 

 happiness, with only so much regard for the 

 happiness of others as is likely to reflect hap- 

 piness upon himself ? 



Mr. Spencer also says : " The poverty of 

 the incapable, the distresses that come upon 

 the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and 

 those shoulderings aside of the weak by the 

 strong, which leave so many ' in shallows 

 and in miseries,' are the decrees of a large, 

 far-seeing benevolence. It seems hard that 

 an unskillfulness which with all his efforts 

 he can not overcome should entail hunger 

 upon the artisan. It seems hard that a la- 

 borer incapacitated by sickness from com- 

 peting with his stronger fellows should have 

 to bear the resulting privation. It seems 

 hard that widows and orphans should be 

 left to struETEcle for life or death. Neverthe- 

 less, when regarded not separately, but in 

 connection with the interests of universal 

 humanity, these har^h features are seen to 

 be full of the highest beneficence — the same 

 beneficence which brings to early graves the 

 children of diseased parents, and singles out 

 the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the 

 debilitated as the victims of an epidemic " 

 (Social Statics, p. 354). In the foregoing 

 paragraph Mr. Spencer has included types 

 of all the objects of human charity. He 

 himself says (p. 356) : "At first sight these 

 considerations seem conclusive against all 

 relief to the poor — voluntary as well as com- 

 pulsory; and it is no doubt true that they 

 imply a condemnation of whatever private 

 charity enables the recipients to elude the 

 necessities of our social existence." He 

 " makes no objection " to " helping men to 

 help themselves," " countenances it rather," 

 but he shows no concern for those who need 

 our charity because they can not help them- 

 selves. 



In another book he says, " It may be 

 doubted whether the maudlin philanthropy 

 which, looking only at direct mitigations, 

 persistently ignores indirect mischiefs, does 

 not inflict a greater total of misery than the 

 extremest selfishness inflicts " (The Study of 

 Sociology, p. 345). But all charity inspired 

 by personal sympathy looks mainlv to "di- 

 rect mitigations," and overlooks those " indi- 

 rect mischiefs " which the aid of the inferior 

 is likely to produce. The " extremest self- 

 ishness " would seem from this presentation 

 to be better than interference with that 

 " large, far-seeing benevolence " which Mr. 

 Spencer sees in the operation of the law of 

 consequences. 



