14 Herbert Spencer. 



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

 ard, to I'urnisli that " counsel of })erfeetion " which his o])- 

 poneut, Green, urges as necessary though from an entirely 

 different i)oint 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 nuike it ])racticable we must 

 also recognize a code of relative ethics b} which to conform 

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

 circumstances will allow, the ):)rogress of mankind to the 

 nu)st i)erfect conditions. This code will involve a varying 

 compromise between egoism and altruism. Mr. Spencer 

 thinks the antagonism between these two will eventually 

 disappear, because the working of social forces must inev- 

 jtaltl}' produce the result that men will increasingly find 

 their happiness in the welfare of others. Their egoistic 

 gratifications will become sympathetic. Their highest self- 

 isli 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 o\ir 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 m 

 the minimum of government, and is uncompromisingly op- 

 posed to all the socialistic tendencies of the time. With 

 ihe militant regimes of continental Europe he has no sym- 

 ])athy, and in the industrial combinations that seek to build 

 up strong organizations for the purposes of domination and 

 dictation he beholds an equally ])ernicious despotism. Mr. 

 Spencer would no doubt be a Mugwiimp in politics au}'- 

 where. He would 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 attempts at regulation beyond the necessities of 

 securit}' are obstriictive of social ])rogress, because they in- 

 terfere with the natural growth which is the thing needed, 



