CHAP, xv REACTION FROM DARWINISM DRUMMOND 155 



name with obloquy, enter, however transformed, into 

 the final moral constitution, and the highest human 

 type? 



Again we ask, can the male element be purely bad ? 

 And when we come on to the " evolution of a father," 

 we find qualifications introduced. Eather to his own 

 surprise, Drummond has to admit that the alleged 

 feminine soul of goodness is not the only moral type. 

 Authority has a place as well as tenderness ; justice, or 

 righteousness, Huxley's favourite virtue, is a specially 

 masculine addition to the sympathetic virtues. Good 

 again ; but again tending to discredit Drummond's 

 Comtist phraseology and his ^was^-biological deduction 

 of righteousness and of sin. 



Another objection has been brought forward by Mr. 

 B. Kidd. Drummond is said to confuse sociality and 

 family affection, whereas they are distinct things. This 

 seems of small importance. Probably the two things 

 ought to be distinguished. Yet they co-operate ; and, 

 as Drummond has observed, the family is the strongest 

 socialising influence. 



We touch on a rather more serious point when we 

 inquire whether " struggle for the life of others " is or is 

 not a factor in physical progress. Once, but (I think) 

 only once, Drummond deals with this question, and 

 gives an affirmative answer, in so far as this, that the 

 best mothers will rear the strongest and most successful 

 offspring. Usually, however, morality or " altruism " is 

 spoken of not as a cause or factor in evolution, but as a 

 feature or result of the evolutionary process. The retort 

 is almost inevitable from the side of pure or ultra- 

 Darwinism, that natural selection by struggle is the 

 whole fact, struggle for the life of others only a part 

 of that fact, signifying struggle of group against group, 



