191 • UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE IIOW FAR TRUE: Chap. VI. 



the good of its possessor. Tliey believe that many structures 

 have been created for l)eauty in the eyes of man, or, as already 

 discussed, for the sake of mere variety. Such doctrines, if 

 true, Avould be aljsolulely fatal to my theory. Yet I fully 

 admit that many structures are now of no direct use to their 

 possessors, and may never have been of an}- use to their pro- 

 genitors. No doubt, as recently remarked, the definite action 

 of changed conditions, correlated variation, and reversion, have 

 all produced their efTects. But the most important consider- 

 ation is that the chief part of the organization of every liv- 

 ing creature is simply due to inheritance; and consequently, 

 though each assuredly is well fitted for its place in Nature, 

 many structures now have no direct relation to existing 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 to the progenitor of the upland goose and 

 of the frigate-bird, webbed feet no doubt were as useful as 

 they now are to the most aquatic of living birds. So we ma^' 

 believe that the progenitor of the seal did not possess a flipper, 

 but a foot with live toes fitted for walking or grasping; and 

 we may further venture to believe that the several bones in 

 the liml)s of the monkey, horse, and bat, which have been in- 

 herited from some ancient progenitor, were formerly of more 

 special use than they now are to these animals M'ith their 

 Avidely-diversificd habits, and might consequently have been 

 modilied through natural selection, M:>king due allowance 

 for the definite action of changed conditions, correlation, rever- 

 sion, etc., we may conclude that every detail of structure in 

 every living creature is either now or was formerly of use — 

 directly or indirectly through the comj^lex laws of growth. 



With respect to the belief that organic beings have been 

 created beautiful for the delight of man — a view which it has 

 been pronounced may safely be accepted as true, and as sub- 

 versive of my whole theory — I may first remark that the idea 

 of the beauty of any object obviously d(^pends on the mind of 

 man, irrespective of any real quality in the a(hnircd object ; and 

 that the idea is not an innate and imalterable element in the 

 mind. We see this in men of ditlerent races admiring an en- 

 tirely diirerent standard of beauty in their women ; neither the 



