ISO UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAR TRUE : [CHAP. 



thus gained. But a still more important consideration is that the 

 chief part of the organisation of every living creature is due to 

 inheritance; and consequently, though each being assuredly is 

 well fitted for its place in nature, many structures have now no 

 very close and direct relation to present habits of life. Thus, we 

 can hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of 

 the frigate-bird are of special use to these birds ; we cannot believe 

 that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg 

 of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, 

 are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute 

 these structures to inheritance. But webbed feet no doubt were 

 as useful to the progenitor of the upland goose and of the frigate- 

 bird, as they now are to the most aquatic of living birds. So we 

 may believe that the progenitor of the seal did not possess a 

 flipper, but a foot with five toes fitted for walking or grasping ; 

 and we may further venture to believe that the several bones in 

 the limbs of the monkey, horse, and bat, were originally developed, 

 on the principle of utility, probably through the reduction of more 

 numerous bones in the fin of some ancient fish-like progenitor of 

 the whole class. It is scarcely possible to decide how much 

 allowance ought to be made for such causes of change, as the 

 definite action of external conditions, so-called spontaneous varia- 

 tions, and the complex laws of growth ; but with these important 

 exceptions, we may conclude that the structure of every living 

 creature either now is, or was formerly, of some direct or indirect 

 use to its possessor. 



With respect to the belief that organic beings have been created 

 beautiful for the delight of man, a belief which it has been 

 pronounced is subversive of my whole theory, I may first remark 

 that the sense of beauty obviously depends on the nature of the 

 mind, irrespective of any real Quality in the admired object ; and 

 that the idea of what is beautiful, is not innate or unalterable- 

 We see this, for instance, in the men of different races admiring 

 an entirely different standard of beauty in their women. If 

 beautiful objects had been created solely for man's gratification, 

 it ought to be shown that before man appeared, there was less 

 beauty on the face of the earth than since he came on the stage. 

 Were the beautiful volute and cone shells of the Eocene epoch, 

 and the gracefully sculptured ammonites of the Secondary period, 

 created that man might ages afterwards admire them in his 

 cabinet ? Few objects are more beautiful than the minute 

 siliceous cases of the diatomaceae: were these created that they 

 might be examined and admired under the higher powers of the 

 microscope? The beauty in this latter case, and in many others, 

 is apparently wholly due to symmetry of growth. Flowers rank 

 amongst the most beautiful productions of nature ; but they hav<* 



