i6o Utilitarian Doctrine how far true : Chap, vl 



sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such, doctrines, if 

 true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory. I fully admit that 

 many structures are now of no direct use to their possessors, and 

 may never have been of any use to their progenitors ; but this does 

 not prove that they were formed solely for beauty or variety. No 

 doubt the definite action of changed conditions, and the various 

 causes of modifications, lately specified, have all produced an 

 effect, probably a great effect, independently of any advantage thus 

 gained. But a still more important consideration is that the chief 

 part of the organisation of every living creature is due to inherit- 

 ance ; and consequently, though each being assuredly is well fitted 

 for its place in nature, many structures have now no very close and 

 direct relation to present 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 webbed feet no doubt were as 

 useful to the progenitor of the upland goose and of the frigate-bird, 

 as they now are to the most aquatic of living birds. So we may 

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

 a foot with five toes fitted for walking or grasping ; and we may 

 further venture to believe that the several bones in the limbs of 

 the monkey, horse, and bat, were originally developed, on the 

 principle of utility, probably through the reduction of more 

 numerous bones in the fin of some ancient fish-like progenitor of 

 the whole class. It is scarcely possible to decide how much 

 allowance ought to be made for such causes of change, as the 

 definite action of external conditions, so-called spontaneous varia- 

 tions, and the complex laws of growth ; but with these important 

 exceptions, we may conclude that the structure of every living 

 creature either now is, or was formerly, of some direct or in- 

 direct use to its possessor. 



With respect to the belief that organic beings have been created 

 beautiful for the delight of man, — a belief which it has been pro- 

 nounced is subversive of my whole theory, — I may first remark 

 that the sense of beauty obviously depends on the nature of the 

 mind, irrespective of any real quality in the admired object ; and 

 that the idea of what is beautiful, is not innate or unalterable. 

 We see this, for instance, in the men of different races admiring an 

 entirely different standard of beauty in their women. If beautiful 

 objects had been created solely for man's gratification, it ought to 



