14 Herbert Spencer. 



character, should always be kept before the mind as a stand- 

 ard, to furnish that " counsel of perfection " which his op- 

 ponent, Green, urges as necessary though from an entirely 

 different point of view. This ideal morality is likely to be 

 realized in the course of evolution, but until there is reached 

 such a state of society as to make it practicable we must 

 also recognize a code of relative ethics by which to conform 

 our actions to our circumstances, and aid, so far as those 

 circumstances will allow, the progress of mankind to the 

 most perfect conditions. This code will involve a varying 

 compromise between egoism and altruism. Mr. tSjJencer 

 thinks the antagonism between these two will ipventually 

 disappear, because the working of social forces must inev- 

 itably produce the result that men will increasingly find 

 their happiness in the welfare of others. Their egoistic 

 gratifications Avill become sympathetic. Their highest self- 

 ish delight will merely be the lust of making other people ' 

 delighted. In a word, individual happiness will only be, 

 complete in the social happiness. Mr. Spencer is surely 

 right in this view. We never can wholly eliminate self-re- 

 garding ends. Our own action must ultimately be directed 

 to securing our own pleasure and preventing pain to our- 

 selves. But it is quite possible for us to so form our char- 

 acters that our highest pleasure is the pleasure and welfare 

 of others ; and in the measure that this is completely achieved 

 is the conciliation between egoism and altruism perfected. 



Our author's political philosophy is as radically individ- 

 ualistic as that of William von Humboldt. He believes in 

 the minimum of government, and is uncompromisingly op- 

 posed to all the socialistic tendencies of the time. With 

 the militant regimes of continental Euro})e he has no sym- 

 pathy, and in the industrial combinations that seek to build 

 up strong organizations for the purposes of domination and 

 dictation he beholds an equally pernicious despotism. Mr. 

 Spencer would no doubt be a Mugwump in politics any- 

 where. He Avould not support political machines, nor would 

 he favor concentration or centralization of power. He car- 

 ries to an extreme the laissez-faire doctrine. With him 

 society is always "a growth, not a manufacture," and he 

 deems that attemjits at regulation beyond the necessities of 

 security are obstructive of social progress, because they in- 

 terfere with the natural growth which is the thing needed, 



