410 



The Journal of Herej^ity 



hard-headed form of utihtarianism 

 preached that altruism results from 

 selfish considerations. Or Hume mij^ht 

 describe an objective sympathw (hu' to 

 laws of mental association. 



EUGENICS NOT EGOISTIC. 



But eugenics from an ethical view- 

 point must soon traverse these hard- 

 headed and essentially egoistic forms of 

 utilitarianism. Eugenics, whatever 

 else it may be, is surely transindividual 

 in its scope. To be sure, the eugenist 

 may dwell with pride upon "my" 

 progeny, family, nation, or race, and 

 the motive in eugenic ])olicy may remain 

 as utilitarian as ever. 



Still there would be no denial that 

 the common-welfare ethics is in some 

 sense suijcrior to the egoistic forms of 

 utilitarianism. And eugenics, if it can 

 be appraised in utilitarian terms, mvist 

 surely be described as transindividual 

 and altruistic. If the inborn qualities 

 of the race are by hypothesis to be some- 

 how improved, then it is obvious that 

 the race must be preserved and doubt- 

 less in projjer numbers. Leaving out 

 of consicleration for a moment just what 

 proper numbers mean, it is clear that 

 eugenics is not merely Malthusianism. 

 Nor has eugenics, so far as I can see, 

 any necessary connection with Mal- 

 thusian considerations or with popula- 

 tion-numbers. The emphasis is no 

 longer ujjon quantity, but uj^on quality 

 of ijeojjle, and upon their quality 

 regardless of their numbers. Doubtless 

 Bentham's phrase ''the greatest good to 

 the greatest number'' as the great utili- 

 tarian object, would perfectly suit one 

 interpretation of eugenics, ])rovided 

 that wc simjjly qualify the greatest 

 number by insisting that their inborn 

 qualities be somehow im])roved. Thus 

 eugenics is not at all inconsistent with 

 those higher forms of British utilitar- 

 ianism which insist on improvements 

 looking to the common welfare. Grant 

 the eugenist's claim that the best 

 should marry and grant that science 

 can show who the best are, and it is 

 obvious that the limitation of child- 

 births to a marriage is not in the 

 interests of the race. No eugenist, 



therefore, is rationally an advocate of 

 race-suicide. His special task is to 

 show that, and how, the inborn qualities 

 of the race can be im]jroved. The 

 improvements which better men will 

 make in their accessible environments 

 will, the utihtarian might well argue, 

 automatically put an end to the ten- 

 dency, now thought ])revalent, to the 

 prudential limitation of child-births. 



The most successful eugenics con- 

 ceivable (aristogenics), issuing from a 

 process by which more and greater great 

 men would continually be produced, 

 should gradually ]jut an end to compara- 

 tively minor problems of civilization 

 like the Malthusian problem. 



But to my mind such discussion is a 

 little over-rational to be quite jjersua- 

 sive. It is doutful whether the utili- 

 tarians are the soundest moralists, 

 whether pleasure or even happiness are 

 more than merely phases of our en- 

 deavor to greater realization either of 

 .self or of some larger social unit like the 

 family, state, or race. 



UNIVERSALITY OF EUGENICS. 



The evolutionistic theories of ethics 

 (as Wundt terms them) in contradis- 

 tinction to the utilitarian theories, 

 (which he terms eudaemonistic) are 

 usually distinguished into individual 

 and universal forms. As before, we 

 must obviously regard eugenics, if it be 

 an ethics of development rather than of 

 hap])iness. still as rather transindividual. 

 rather universal than individual. 



But, though eugenics is surely trans- 

 in(li\'idual, it is not so clear that all 

 authors regard it as a j^rogram for the 

 human race as a whole. 



I can conceive a tacit hope that 

 British eugenics might tower over 

 German eugenics, or that Teuton 

 eugenics should excel various other 

 Caucasian forms. How shall eugenics 

 for the Caucasian be consistent with 

 that for the Semitic races!" And so on. 



It would clearh- l)c hard to solve such 

 l)roblems by the utilitarian devices. 

 The utilitarian, however, hardly takes 

 into account the degree of change which 

 his material undergoes in the course of 

 time. Of course the ])resent-day lion 



