A DEFENSE OF MODERN THOUGHT. 791 



abroad, bad tbere not been a united country behind them. It was 

 the virtues, not the vices, of the Roman people that enabled them to 

 conquer the world. It was their vices, not their virtues, that led to their 

 fall. Fitness to survive is a quality the import of which varies accord- 

 ing to circumstances. In shipwrecks (to pursue his lordship's illustra- 

 tions) the fit to survive are those who can swim, or who have readiness 

 of resource or strength of constitution. In famines and pestilences 

 the physically stronger will as a rule survive ; though here prudence 

 and self-control become also most important elements of safety. Let 

 it always be remembered that the problem with which evolutionary 

 philosophy has to grapple is not how to account for a perfect world, 

 or a perfect state of society, but how to account for just such a 

 mingling of good and evil (accompanied by general tendencies 

 toward good) as we actually witness. This once settled, most of 

 the objections of the theologians would be seen to fall wide of the 

 mark. 



To persons unfamiliar, or but slightly familiar, with the present 

 subject, it is possible that the Bishop of Ontario may appear to have 

 touched a weak point in the doctrine under discussion where he says : 

 " Laws of nature should be obeyed and co-operated with, not fought 

 against and thwarted ; and, if the survival of the fittest be one of those 

 laws, we ought to abolish all hospitals and asylums for the blind, the 

 deaf, the drunkard, the idiot, and the lunatic, and we ought to expose 

 to death all sickly, puny, and superfluous infants." A word, therefore, 

 in regard to this objection may not be thrown away. The first obser- 

 vation to make is, that there is nothing whatever in the law of the 

 survival of the fittest, as understood by men of science to-day, which 

 could possibly be converted into a rule of conduct. The scientific 

 world is not aware that Nature has any ends in view, or is capable of 

 having any ends in view, which she needs the help of man to enable 

 her to realize. Science does not attribute purpose to Nature. Science 

 has simply obtained a glimmering of how, in point of fact. Nature 

 works. It sees that survival is a question of fitness, in other words a 

 question of the fulfillment of the conditions on which continued exist- 

 ence depends. In some cases, as is well known, superiority of type 

 becomes an impediment, not a help, to the preservation of life ; and 

 in a vast number of cases the differentiations on which survival de- 

 pends imply neither progress nor retrogression.* What moral guid- 

 ance, therefore, can possibly be found in a simple perception of the 

 fact that in the realm of Nature there are conditions attached to sur- 

 vival ? We may ask, in the next place, whether there is any single 

 law of Nature which men " obey," or ever have obeyed, in the sense in 

 which his lordship bids us obey the law of the survival of the fittest. 



* Vide Spencer, " Principles of Sociology," vol. i, pp. 106, 107 ; and Haeckcl, " His- 

 tory of Creation," vol. i, p. 285. 



