Evolution of Morals. 281 



ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. 



Professob Thomas Davidson: — 



The fact that I was invited to open this discussion with the full 

 knowledge that the frankest dissent might be exi^ected of me, in- 

 dicates a high degree of moral evolution on the part of the man- 

 agers of this course of lectures. The limited time, however, places 

 me at a disadvantage, speaking as I do to an audience made up of 

 those who agree with the able lecture of Dr, Janes. I object not 

 so much to the observed facts of Evolution, as to its theory about 

 them. I object to the presupposition that there is no knowledge 

 outside of experience. Man's aim, according to the evolution 

 philosophy, is to serve an abstract humanity, without any reward 

 therefor. Evolution, the lecturer declares, is a tendency which 

 has been observed in Nature — a purposeful tendency — a tendency 

 to "fulness of life." The lecturer, however, has failed to de- 

 fine what life is. The assumption that there is no knowledge 

 outside of experience is not due to evolutionary thought, but to a 

 negation of thought. The effort to erect a philosophy on this 

 basis is due to a reactionary impulse in thought which must be 

 short lived. Evolutionists declare that there are three stages in 

 the development of thought, the theologic, the metaphysical and 

 the scientilic. One would think that the metaphysical stage, 

 being so much in advance of the theological, would be treated with 

 respect, but on the contrary it is treated with contempt and abuse. 

 John Stuart Mill, who was a devoted adherent of this philosophy, 

 was one of a class whom we may call "metaphysical-phobists." 

 Now, metaphysics is in bad repute principally on account of the 

 shallowness of thought and narrowness of reading of these meta- 

 physical-i»hobists who are now so i)opular. Evolutionists know 

 nothing of metaphysics. What do they know of Aristotle, of the 

 Xeo-Platonists, of Thomas Aquinas ? We do not get all our own 

 knowledge from experience. Tlie assertion that we know nothing 

 of the spiritual which is not revealed in experience is due to pure 

 jirejudice. Dr. Janes indeed speaks of a "Universal Spirit" with 

 a purpose, and this is essentially a theological conception. And 

 this "fulness of life," — what does it mean? Does it mean the 

 maintenance of all life — the life of "all sentient creatures," or of 



