2 68 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the facts are against him is a question 

 we do not undertake to decide ; but it 



us to us hardly probable that he 

 would even try to maintain his present 

 position if thoroughly informed on the 

 point at issue. 



Dr. Hill tells us that, in the lecture 

 in which the passage challenged by us 

 occurred, he was drawing attention to 

 the two hurtful extremes of undiscrimi- 

 nating charity and complete egoism, as 

 represented by Herbert Spencer; and 

 that it was thus that he came to say 

 that "some counselors, like Herbert 

 Spencer, advise us to follow our own 

 self-interest without concern for others, 

 with the assurance that all will be thus 

 happier because more independent." 

 The intention to make Mr. Spencer the 

 representative of a more or less repul- 

 sive moral doctrine is thus avowed. 

 What, then, is the proof that Mr. Spen- 

 cer advocates any such doctrine? Dr. 

 Hill points us to a passage in which Mr. 

 Spencer uses some of the words em- 

 ployed to summarize his teaching. But, 

 in the passage in question (Data of 

 Ethics, page 227), Mr. Spencer is not 

 giving any counsel ; he is simply mak- 

 ing two suppositions and drawing a 

 conclusion from each. These are his 

 words : " Suppose that each citizen pur- 

 sues his own happiness independently, 

 not to the detriment of others, but with- 

 out active concern for others ; then their 

 united happiness constitutes a certain 

 sum — a certain general happiness. Now 

 suppose that each, instead of making his 

 own happiness the object of pursuit, 

 makes the happiness of others the object 

 of pursuit ; then again there results a cer- 

 tain sum of happiness." He goes on to 

 show that it is impossible any general 

 gain could result from the neglect of 

 one's own happiness in the pursuit of 

 that of others. What proof is there 

 here that he would not wish us to in- 

 terest ourselves in the welfare of our 

 neighbors? The whole drift of the 

 chapter (entitled Trial and Compro- 

 mise) in which the above passage is 



found is to show that absolute egoism 

 and absolute altruism alike defeat the 

 ends in view : the absolutely egoistic 

 man fails to make himself happy, and 

 the absolutely altruistic man fails to 

 make others happy ; therefore, some 

 compromise between the two principles 

 is necessary. Not to go any further 

 than this we find Mr. Spencer's position 

 sufficiently defined. He does not stand, 

 as Dr. Hill would have his readers be- 

 lieve, for " the emphasis of egoism " : 

 what he emphasizes, and that over and 

 over again, is the necessity for a due 

 blending of egoism and altruism. 



But Dr. Hill has other proofs. He 

 quotes Mr. Spencer as saying that there 

 is "a permanent supremacy of egoism 

 over altruism." True ; and how does 

 Mr. Spencer explain the words ? Let us 

 quote : " The acts by which each main- 

 tains his own life must, speaking gener- 

 ally, precede in imperativeness all other 

 acts of which he is capable. . . . The 

 acts required for continued self-preserva- 

 tion, including the enjoyment of benefits 

 achieved by such acts, are the first requi- 

 sites to universal welfare. Unless each 

 duly cares for himself, his care for all 

 others is ended by death ; and if each 

 thus dies, there remain no others to be 

 cared for." Then follow the words 

 which Dr. Hill relies on to help his 

 case: " Thjs permanent supremacy of 

 egoism over altruism is further made 

 manifest," etc. Now, here we have it 

 fully explained that by " supremacy " is 

 meant priority in time and precedence 

 in biological importance. How is this 

 to be twisted into an exhortation "to 

 follow our own self-interest, without 

 concern for others " ? 



Dr. Hill further asserts Mr. Spencer's 

 teaching to be that " each creature shall 

 take the benefits and evils of its own 

 nature, be they those derived from an- 

 cestry or those due to self-produced 

 modifications." This is not quite cor- 

 rectly put, though the error is probably 

 not intentional on Dr. Hill's part. Mr. 

 Spencer does not say that " each creat- 



