179 
last for ever on earth, and entering into no considerations as to a future life, 
— produce more happiness than misery, more pleasure than pain. I cannot 
see how any merely human mind can settle this point. (Hear, hear.) 
Professor TV ace. — It would he unreasonable in me to say much more 
after having already occupied the time of the meeting at such length, 
especially as so little has been said by others on a subject which, consider- 
ing its importance, I could have wished to have had thoroughly discussed. 
The Paper which has been read does not pretend to make an original con- 
tribution to the ethical problem under discussion ; but the point which 
struck me about this book, as soon as it was published, was, that here ap- 
peared to be the final result of the evolution philosophy as applied to human 
life, and as explained by the chief representative of that philosophy. It 
was natural to address oneself at once to such a work in order to learn what 
this philosophy had to tell us as its final outcome and total result. It is difficult 
to go adequately into this philosophy in its physical aspect ; but when a 
man speaks about ethics, many of us have the means of appreciating his 
arguments ; and I consequently read the book with serious interest. The 
main point that struck me, and which I have endeavoured to illustrate 
in this Paper, is, that the author has not mastered, at all events, the great 
contributions to ethics made in former times, and that whatever may be the 
ultimate conclusions come to on the matter, his reasoning is thoroughly 
unsound. If, as the total result of all this speculation, you are offered a mass 
of simply fallacious reasoning, considered merely as reasoning, that appears 
to be a remarkable result, and one to which attention ought to be called. I 
am inclined to think the time has come when one may cease to be quite so 
polite as people commonly have been to some of this philosophy. Personally, 
of course, we owe all respect to the writers, and I trust there is not a word in 
my Paper that can be deemed disrespectful to Mr. Spencer ; but I think we 
ought to cease to be respectful about argument, and that we should hit an 
unsound philosophical proposition just as hard as an advocate in a court of law 
hits the bad reasoning of another advocate. (Hear, hear.) As to the point 
just adduced by Mr. Buckley, with regard to Mr. Spencer not being able to 
calculate pleasures and pains, I have shown that this is exactly what 
Mr. Spencer admits. He cannot calculate such results, and if a man builds 
up a theory on principles that cannot be carried out, we know what becomes 
of the theory. In short, in considering this book, I am reminded of a story 
told, I think, of Voltaire, who said he had only two objections to the 
title of the “ Holy Eoman Empire,” — the one being that it was not holy, 
and the other that it was not Eoman. (Laughter.) In the same way it 
may be said of this book, on the Data of Ethics, that there are two objections 
to the title ; it is difficult to find the Data , and equally difficult to find the 
Ethics. The data resolve themselves into assumptions, and the ethics into 
physics. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
