EUGENICS AND HUMAN 

 MORALITY 



WHENEVER people meet nowa- 

 days to discuss delinquency, there 

 is likely to be heard a complaint 

 that the accepted standards of conduct 

 are coming to be more and more disre- 

 garded; that the old ideas of morality 

 are going into the discard; that the 

 younger generation, in particular, is 

 less and less influenced by the customs 

 of respectability and decency which 

 had, it is averred, a binding power a 

 few decades ago. 



It is, therefore, desirable that the 

 current ideas about morality be care- 

 fully examined by all thoughtful people. 

 Such an examination involves some of 

 the broadest and most fundamental 

 concepts with which the human mind 

 has dealt. Whole libraries of books 

 have been written on or about the sub- 

 ject. I am sure I will be pardoned, 

 therefore, if I attempt to do nothing 

 more than indicate a few of the salient 

 points in a single line of reasoning. 

 This line of reasoning will lead to the 

 conclusion that better and more widely 

 observed standards of morality de- 

 pend largely on an increase in the 

 average level of intelligence of the 

 population; which increase is in turn 

 dependent on changes in the birth rate. 

 This is, of course, only a single point of 

 view of an extremely complex subject 

 which also can be, and ought to be, 

 viewed from other angles. 



To begin, then, what is morality? 

 A man's conduct or behavior, as it 

 affects others than himself, is influenced 

 by a wide variety of factors, and to the 

 working of certain groups of these the 

 term "morality" is loosely and often 

 vaguely applied. For the present pur- 

 pose it will be convenient to review a 

 few of the kinds of influence that have 

 determined the nature of human con- 



Paul Popenoe 

 Coachella, Calif. 



duct at one time or another. Without 

 going into a critical or exhaustive 

 analysis of the subject, one may readily 

 recognize five categories. 



THE ELEMENTS OF MORALITY 



1. Instinct. In lower animals, con- 

 duct is directed largely, in most cases 

 wholly, by certain innate and slightly 

 modifiable tendencies, desires, and 

 impulses which are often loosely 

 grouped together under the name of 

 instinct. No doubt man in his earliest 

 period was so guided, — as he is still to. 

 a large extent. But as he became more 

 of a social animal, mere instinct did not 

 suffice. True, the instincts for action 

 in conformity with "the herd" are just 

 as genuine as the instincts for wholly 

 selfish action. But some of the more 

 powerful instincts, such as those con- 

 nected with pugnacity, deceitfulness, 

 hoarding, and sex, are largely individ- 

 ualistic, and their expression may fre- 

 quently get an individual into trouble 

 with the herd. Instinct alone is not, in 

 a modern human society, even an ade- 

 quate guide for the conduct of domesti- 

 cated cats and dogs,— much less for the 

 human members of the community. Yet 

 a certain school of self-styled advanced 

 thinkers looks to it as a guide in 

 problems of conduct, urging that obedi- 

 ence to instinct is the duty and privilege 

 of the "free man." Unless this view is 

 seriously qualified, it is hardly necessary 

 to say that it is at least 10,000 years 

 behind the times. 



2. Custom. The lines of conduct- 

 evolved as the result of conflict and 

 compromise between selfish instinct and 

 the requirements of co-operative social 

 life steadily increasing in complexity, 

 have led to the establishment of mores, 

 folkways, written or unwritten laws, 



1 Address before the Section on Delinquency, California Conference of Social Work. San 

 Diego, April 26, 1922. 



77 



