CHAPTER I. PAGE.

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this

file which includes the original illustration.

See 46129-h.htm or 46129-h.zip:

(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46129/pg46129-images.html)

or

(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46129/46129-h.zip)

Images of the original pages are available through

Internet Archive. See

https://archive.org/details/dataofethic00spenuoft

[Illustration: HERBERT SPENCER.]

THE DATA OF ETHICS

by

HERBERT SPENCER

Author of "First Principles," "Education," etc.

[Illustration]

A. L. Burt Company,

Publishers, New York

AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

A reference to the programme of the "System of Synthetic Philosophy"

will show that the chapters herewith issued constitute the first

division of the work on the _Principles of Morality_, with which the

System ends. As the second and third volumes of the _Principles of

Sociology_ are as yet unpublished, this installment of the succeeding

work appears out of its place.

I have been led thus to deviate from the order originally set down by

the fear that persistence in conforming to it might result in leaving

the final work of the series unexecuted. Hints, repeated of late years

with increasing frequency and distinctness, have shown me that health

may permanently fail, even if life does not end, before I reach the

last part of the task I have marked out for myself. This last part of

the task it is to which I regard all the preceding parts as subsidiary.

Written as far back as 1842, my first essay, consisting of letters on

The _Proper Sphere of Government_, vaguely indicated what I conceived

to be certain general principles of right and wrong in political

conduct, and from that time onward my ultimate purpose, lying behind

all proximate purposes, has been that of finding for the principles

of right and wrong, in conduct at large, a scientific basis. To leave

this purpose unfulfilled, after making so extensive a preparation for

fulfilling it, would be a failure the probability of which I do not

like to contemplate, and I am anxious to preclude it, if not wholly,

still partially. Hence the step I now take. Though this first division

of the work terminating the Synthetic Philosophy, cannot, of course,

contain the specific conclusions to be set forth in the entire work,

yet it implies them in such wise that, definitely to formulate them

requires nothing beyond logical deduction.

I am the more anxious to indicate in outline, if I cannot complete,

this final work, because the establishment of rules of right conduct

on a scientific basis is a pressing need. Now, that moral injunctions

are losing the authority given by their supposed sacred origin, the

secularization of morals is becoming imperative. Few things can happen

more disastrous than the decay and death of a regulative system no

longer fit, before another and fitter regulative system has grown

up to replace it. Most of those who reject the current creed appear

to assume that the controlling agency furnished by it may safely be

thrown aside, and the vacancy left unfilled by any other controlling

agency. Meanwhile, those who defend the current creed allege that in

the absence of the guidance it yields, no guidance can exist: divine

commandments they think the only possible guides. Thus, between these

extreme opponents, there is a certain community. The one holds that

the gap left by disappearance of the code of supernatural ethics need

not be filled by a code of natural ethics, and the other holds that it

cannot be so filled. Both contemplate a vacuum, which the one wishes

and the other fears. As the change which promises or threatens to

bring about this state, desired or dreaded, is rapidly progressing,

those who believe that the vacuum can be filled, and that it must be

filled, are called on to do something in pursuance of their belief.

To this more special reason I may add a more general reason. Great

mischief has been done by the repellent aspect habitually given

to moral rule by its expositors, and immense benefits are to be

anticipated from presenting moral rule under that attractive aspect

which it has when undistorted by superstition and asceticism. If a

father, sternly enforcing numerous commands, some needful and some

needless, adds to his severe control a behavior wholly unsympathetic;

if his children have to take their pleasures by stealth, or, when

timidly looking up from their play, ever meet a cold glance or more

frequently a frown, his government will inevitably be disliked, if

not hated, and the aim will be to evade it as much as possible.

Contrariwise, a father who, equally firm in maintaining restraints

needful for the well-being of his children or the well-being of other

persons, not only avoids needless restraints, but, giving his sanction

to all legitimate gratifications and providing the means for them,

looks on at their gambols with an approving smile, can scarcely fail

to gain an influence which, no less efficient for the time being,

will also be permanently efficient. The controls of such two fathers

symbolize the controls of Morality as it is and Morality as it should

be.

Nor does mischief result only from this undue severity of the ethical

doctrine bequeathed us by the harsh past. Further mischief results from

the impracticability of its ideal. In violent reaction against the

utter selfishness of life as carried on in barbarous societies, it has

insisted on a life utterly unselfish. But just as the rampant egoism of

a brutal militancy was not to be remedied by attempts at the absolute

subjection of the ego in convents and monasteries, so neither is the

misconduct of ordinary humanity, as now existing, to be remedied by

upholding a standard of abnegation beyond human achievement. Rather

the effect is to produce a despairing abandonment of all attempts at

a higher life. And not only does an effort to achieve the impossible

end in this way, but it simultaneously discredits the possible. By

association with rules that cannot be obeyed, rules that can be obeyed

lose their authority.

Much adverse comment will, I doubt not, be passed on the theory of

right conduct which the following pages shadow forth. Critics of a

certain class, far from rejoicing that ethical principles otherwise

derived by them, coincide with ethical principles scientifically

derived, are offended by the coincidence. Instead of recognizing

essential likeness they enlarge on superficial difference. Since the

days of persecution, a curious change has taken place in the behavior

of so-called orthodoxy toward so-called heterodoxy. The time was

when a heretic, forced by torture to recant, satisfied authority by

external conformity: apparent agreement sufficed, however profound

continued to be the real disagreement. But now that the heretic can

no longer be coerced into professing the ordinary belief, his belief

is made to appear as much opposed to the ordinary as possible. Does

he diverge from established theological dogma? Then he shall be an

atheist; however inadmissible he considers the term. Does he think

spiritualistic interpretations of phenomena not valid? Then he shall be

classed as a materialist; indignantly though he repudiates the name.

And in like manner, what differences exist between natural morality

and supernatural morality, it has become the policy to exaggerate

into fundamental antagonisms. In pursuance of this policy, there will

probably be singled out for reprobation from this volume, doctrines

which, taken by themselves, may readily be made to seem utterly wrong.

With a view to clearness, I have treated separately some correlative

aspects of conduct, drawing conclusions either of which becomes untrue

if divorced from the other; and have thus given abundant opportunity

for misrepresentation.

The relations of this work to works preceding it in the series are such

as to involve frequent reference. Containing, as it does, the outcome

of principles set forth in each of them, I have found it impracticable

to dispense with re-statements of those principles. Further, the

presentation of them in their relations to different ethical theories,

has made it needful, in every case, briefly to remind the reader what

they are, and how they are derived. Hence an amount of repetition which

to some will probably appear tedious. I do not, however, much regret

this almost unavoidable result; for only by varied iteration can alien

conceptions be forced on reluctant minds.

_June_, 1879.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. PAGE.

Conduct in General 1

The Data of Ethics · 第 1 / 20 章