1880.] Natural Science and Morality . 447 
at the least possible expenditure of labour, could earn them 
in ten days, acquire them in an underhand manner in one, 
the risk of detection in the latter case being, say, one to ten 
— then a penalty (fixed by society) of something more than 
ioo days’ labour, in the event of detection, would be suffi- 
cient to make him see that it was to his interest to adopt 
that method of obtaining the said goods which was concur- 
rent with the interests of his neighbours. Or again, if one 
man, observing that his neighbour never dreamed of going a 
step out of his way to help anyone else, himself resolutely 
determined not to move so much as a little finger to his 
neighbour’s assistance, it would not be long before passive 
selfishness died out. For not to retaliate would be to offer 
a premium on selfishness, just as not to punish a theft would 
be to offer a premium on thieving, or to encourage it. Selfish- 
ness is analogous to thieving (in kind at least), since by it an 
individual obtains an unfair advantage at the expense of his 
neighbour. The course taken by society must obviously 
be to a Ct so towards selfish persons that selfishness (like 
thieving) is rendered unprofitable, or against the interests of 
the individual who practises it. This is tacitly done ; but 
unfortunately, as regards doctrine , the contrary maxim is 
commonly preached, though in practical life it never can be 
and never is aCted upon, as indeed it would be highly unde- 
sirable if it were. The apparently amiable doCtrine that 
one should return good for evil, love one’s enemies, &c. 
[like some other maxims that may recommend themselves 
on a superficial view] , shows itself on analysis to be highly 
dangerous, constituting the strongest possible incentive to 
selfishness, and consequently the general practice of which 
would ruin society. From the very faCt, however, that the 
ideal aimed at in this kind of dodtrine is unattainable 
[on account of its inherent defedts] , it unfortunately comes 
on that account to be looked upon as something nobler and 
above this world, and forms a never-ending resource for 
sermonising and for characterising mankind as “ miserable 
sinners.” It may be safely concluded that the larger pro- 
portion of the asserted wickedness of this world is of clerical 
imagination. Without inquiring too closely into (perhaps un- 
conscious) motives, it is none the less obvious that the more 
degrading the pidture drawn of humanity, or the blacker the 
colours in which this world is painted, the brighter must the 
painters inevitably appear by contrast, and the stronger must 
seem the motive for their raison d'etre. This is unavoidable, 
and it must at least be admitted that the colours seledted to 
paint humanity are of sufficiently sable hue. 
VOL ii. (third series). a i 
