CHAP. Xv REACTION FROM DARWINISM: DRUMMOND 1 6? 



into the final moral constitution, and the highest 

 human type ? 



Again we ask, can the male element be purely 

 bad ? And when we come on to the " evolution of a 

 father," we find qualifications introduced. Rather to 

 his own surprise, Drummond has to admit that the 

 alleged feminine soul of goodness is not the only 

 moral type. Authority has a place as well as tender- 

 ness ; justice, or righteousness, Huxley's favourite 

 virtue, is a specially masculine addition to the sym- 

 pathetic virtues. Good again ; but again tending to 

 discredit Drummond's Comtist phraseology and his 

 quasi-biological deduction of righteousness and of 

 sin. 



Another objection has been brought forward by 

 Mr. B. Kidd. Drummond is said to confuse sociality 

 and family affection, whereas they are distinct things. 

 This seems of small importance. Probably the two 

 things ought to be distinguished. Yet they co-operate ; 

 and, as Drummond has observed, the family is 

 the strongest socialising influence. 



We touch on a rather more serious point when we 

 inquire whether " struggle for the life of others " is 

 or is not a factor in physical progress. Once, but 

 (I think) only once, Drummond deals with this ques- 

 tion, and gives an affirmative answer, in so far as this, 

 that the best mothers will rear the strongest and 

 most successful offspring. Usually, however, morality 

 or " altruism " is spoken of not as a cause or factor in 

 evolution, but as a feature or result of the evolution- 

 ary process. The retort is almost inevitable from the 

 side of pure or ultra-Darwinism, that natural selection 

 by struggle is the whole fact, struggle for the life 



