128 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



which he does at length and with 

 much vigor, our author shows that 

 he can not or will not understand 

 the ethics which the scientists are 

 developing. He says: "As to moral- 

 ity, the religion of humanity seemed 

 extremely untrustworthy ; for the 

 removal of all personal responsibil- 

 ity, and the certainty of complete 

 annihilation after death, seemed to 

 give the strong-minded and clever 

 people the strongest possible induce- 

 ment to make their fellow-beings 

 tools for their own happiness." Go- 

 ing on, he draws a dreadful picture 

 of the effect which the ethics of the 

 scientists has produced upon ordi- 

 nary mortals who, " caring little for 

 what would happen to the next gen- 

 eration, or still less to generations 

 thousands of years hence," have 

 lived for self-gratification. He re- 

 turns to this subject in a later chap- 

 ter and instances " the case of a poor 

 laborer who, in the usual course, will 

 work and suffer during his whole life 

 and die in poverty. To escape such 

 a destiny," says our author, "many 

 roads are open to him if he have 

 courage, exceptional ability, and no 

 belief in a hereafter. . . . He might 

 even avoid violent and vulgar crimes 

 and operate in a safer manner. He 

 might blackmail a rich man. . . . 

 He might turn first a usurer, then a 

 financier. He might keep a degrad- 

 ing public house or a gigantic im- 

 moral place of amusement. He 

 might issue a debasing newspaper, 

 write corrupting books and dramat- 

 ic pieces." A careful revision of his 

 manuscrij)t or a sense of humor, such 

 as he denies to Max Nordau, ought 

 to have shown our author that he 

 has here created an impossible char- 

 acter. A "poor laborer" with the 

 " courage " and " exceptional abili- 

 ty" to do any one of these things, 

 would not " in the usual course work 

 and suffer dui'ing his whole life and 

 die in povert3^" He could secure 



ease and a competency in many an 

 entirely moral calling. 



We feel well enough acquainted 

 with the ethics of the scientists which 

 our author denounces to say that one 

 of its cardinal principles is the inevi- 

 table sequence of cause and effect. 

 From this law it follows that no one 

 can do evil without evil being re- 

 turned. Circumstances may post- 

 pone the effects of his acts until 

 after his death, but he can never 

 count on this, and every one sees 

 cases in which the reaction is swift 

 and terrible. Even if he were sure 

 that the consequences of his evil 

 deeds would be borne mainly or 

 wholly by the next generation, there 

 would still be a restraining influence 

 upon him. How can a more agoniz- 

 ing punishment be inflicted upon a 

 mother than through her children, 

 Or a stronger appeal be addressed to 

 her than one for their welfare ? And 

 it is a question whether the love of 

 a father for his offspring is not as 

 strong as that of a mother, even if 

 less intense. But aside from ties of 

 blood we do care for those who are 

 to survive or come after us. The 

 conduct and labors of many a per- 

 son have been avowedly governed 

 by the desire that men should speak 

 well of him after his death. Count- 

 less lives have been heroically sacri- 

 ficed through devotion to fellow-crea- 

 tures or native land, perhaps mingled 

 with a wild delight in conquering ob- 

 stacles, but without thought of reward 

 hereafter. 



The central idea of the ethics of 

 the scientists, as we understand it, 

 is conformity to the order of the uni- 

 verse. Any one who violates this 

 order in his relations to his fellow- 

 men is just as sure of provoking a 

 punitive reaction as when he comes 

 in conflict with the law of gravita- 

 tion. This truth would be more evi- 

 dent if scientific ethics were more 

 generally taken as a guide. The 



