540 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. VII., No. 176 



fact, this may be the object of all his economic 

 studies. 



Why, then, should we not allow the economic 

 student to consider things as they are, and things 

 as they ought to be, altogether ? I reply, the reason 

 is that he is thus led into a confusion of thought 

 which is fatal to his success. I find that men 

 continually think we are talking to them of things 

 that ought to be. when, in fact, we are only talk- 

 ing of things that are or would be. Indeed, from 

 what little I have seen of men and their ways of 

 reasoning, I am inclined to think that one of the 

 most difficult pieces of mental discipline is that 

 of learning to look upon facts simply as facts. 

 Times without number I have seen educated men 

 refuse to accept a statement of fact, not on the 

 ground that it was not a fact, but that it was not 

 necessarily so, or might be different, or ought to 

 be different. I should be very sorry to see any 

 teacher foster this mental weakness ; and I see no 

 way to cure it except to say to the student, ' Now, 

 remember that I am only telling you facts and 

 results.' 



Passing on to what ought to be, Professor Ely 

 sets forth in detail the ethical idea which animates 

 the new political economy. He thinks that 

 economists, like everybody else, should strive 

 after perfection. In this I do not think he will 

 find any to disagree with him. When he tells us 

 what we are to do to bring about the rational per- 

 fection which he is aiming at, there may be dif- 

 ferences of opinion ; but, when he thinks that he 

 sees any great divergence between his views and 

 the popular ones which he cites, I cannot but 

 think he is mistaken. For example : he tells you, 

 that, if you listen to two ladies discussing the 

 education of the serving-class, you will find that 

 the arguments all turn upon the effect thereby 

 produced upon them as servants. But is it not 

 highly probable, that, taking these people as they 

 stand, their development into good servants is the 

 highest and most rational of which they are 

 capable ? Would he have Cuffee trained into a 

 novelist, a chemist, or a metaphysician? Is it 

 not highly probable that that being does more 

 good, both to himself and to society, by being a 

 thoroughly good servant than he would by being 

 the very best mathematician which he was capa- 

 ble of being ? If so, then there is no antagonism 

 between the selfish housewife and the philan- 

 thropic professor. 



Again, he cites Renan as calmly assuring us 

 that forty millions may well be regarded as dung 

 did they but supply the fertility which will pro- 

 duce one truly great man. It seems to me that 

 this remark is too figurative to base any discussion 

 upon. It indicates no definite policy towards the 



lower classes, and only gives voice to the feeling 

 that one great man may be more important than 

 millions of the lower orders of men. 



It seems to me these remarks of Professor Ely 

 savor much more strongly of the doctrines of 

 individualism, which he vigorously opposes, than 

 of those of the socialistic school of which he is 

 so distinguished an expounder. If I rightly under- 

 stand the ground taken by the last-named school, 

 it is that the interests of the individual should be 

 held subordinate to those of society, and that the 

 prosperity of society should be the first object of 

 the economist. Accepting this view, it follows 

 that the education of the masses should be di- 

 rected by considerations based less upon the wants 

 of their members as individuals than upon the 

 wants of society at large, future as well as pres- 

 ent. If, now and during the next hundred years, 

 society stands more in need of great leaders of 

 thought, administrators, and expounders, than it 

 does of servants and mechanics, it follows, from 

 the socialistic point of view, that our efforts should 

 be directed to the rearing of such men rather 

 than to the education of the masses in subjects 

 that will not make them better citizens. 



One would infer from Professor Ely's paper 

 that a very serious question at issue between him- 

 self and the older school of economists is whether 

 ethical considerations should be allowed to obtrude 

 themselves into questions of economic policy. I 

 think a careful review of the ground taken by 

 the new school will show that it is his school 

 which is most prone to reject such considera- 

 tions. For example : in the case of free trade it 

 is very common for representatives of the school 

 of governmental interference to claim that free- 

 dom of trade is founded on the idea that the in- 

 terests of humanity at large should be taken into 

 account in deciding the question. In opposition 

 to this, they claim that we should consider our 

 own interests exclusively. Again : the claim that 

 every individual has the right to be the sole mas- 

 ter of his own acts, within the limitations neces- 

 sary to social order, is a purely ethical one ; yet 

 no doctrine of the old school is more vigorously 

 assaulted by the new school. 



The fact is that Professor Ely, in the following 

 passage, gives an admirable statement of the 

 doctrine of the school of individualism, to v% Inch 

 he professes a bitter opposition : — 



" It is well to describe somewhat more in detail 

 the ethical ideal which animates the new politicly 

 economy. It is the most perfect development of 

 all human faculties in each individual, which can 

 be attained. There are powers in every human 

 being capable of cultivation ; and each person, it 

 may be said, accomplishes his end when these 



