THE MORALITY OF HAPPIXESS. 381 



nothing but the anger roused by some attempt, more barefaced than 

 the rest, moves to resistance. We see this especially exemplified in 

 the families of careless parents — unselfish perhaps in a sense, but real- 

 ly negligent of their duties. It has been said for this reason that un- 

 selfish parents have commonly selfish children, Tvhich seems contrary 

 to the law of heredity, but illustrates rather the natural influence of 

 defective training. The fact really is, that the children of selfish par- 

 ents are as a rule more selfish in character than those of the unselfish ; 

 they grow up to be as unpleasant in their ways as the children of 

 careless, unwatchful parents ; and their unpleasantness is more apt to 

 be permanent. Yet the unchecked ways of children whose parents 

 yield unwisely to them, illustrate well on a small scale (even though 

 happily the mischief is often transient) how the assertion of just 

 claims, and the restraint of wrong-doing, involve a form of egoism 

 which must be regarded as a duty. 



In life outside the family, we constantly find the duty of resisting 

 evil presenting itself in apparently egoistic aspect. In hundreds of 

 ways the members of Class C show their readiness to become members 

 of Class D and members of class D to develop their unpleasant ways. 

 The adoption of considerate habits and care for the just claims of 

 others in all the multitudinous details of our daily life, constantly 

 lead to attempts by the selfish and obnoxious to take advantage of 

 what they regard as mere weakness of disposition. In such cases, 

 while it is by no means desirable to give up ways which are in them- 

 selves essential to the well-being of the society of which we form part, 

 we must — as a duty — resist the encroachments of objectionable per- 

 sons — not the less that the matter insisted uwon is one to which we 

 attach importance, so that our firmness has its egoistic aspect. Men 

 are but children of a larger growth, and there is no surer or better 

 way of eliminating at least the grosser forms of selfishness than by so 

 resisting unjust claims that they — simply fail. This is the appropriate 

 punishment — akin to that which Mr, Spencer regards (most justly in 

 my opinion) as the only proper form of punishment for children, viz,, 

 punishment which is the direct consequence of ill conduct. Of course, 

 it will happen that mere resistance of a wrong may bring definite 

 punishment — directly or indirectly — to the wrong-doer ; but (apart 

 from such cases, in which we have to ask whether justice may not 

 need to be tempered with mercy) all I would insist on is that the self- 

 ish, grasping, oppressive members of the body social should be so re- 

 sisted that, whenever it is possible, they fail of their unfair purpose. 



The rule applies in small matters as well as great, Mr, Spencer 

 himself notes (though it is when dealing with selfishness specifically) a 

 case of not infrequent occurrence, and perhaps of a trifling enough 

 kind — the acted falsehood of railway-passengers who, by dispersed 

 coats, make a traveler believe that all the seats in a compartment are 

 taken when they are not. Here the detection and resistance of an 



