Produced by Donald Cummings, Adrian Mastronardi, Martin
Pettit and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)
+-------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber's note: |
| |
|Errors listed in the Errata have been corrected. |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------+
ON MR. SPENCER'S DATA OF ETHICS.
BY MALCOLM GUTHRIE,
AUTHOR OF
"ON MR. SPENCER'S FORMULA OF EVOLUTION," & "ON MR. SPENCER'S
UNIFICATION OF KNOWLEDGE."
LONDON:
THE MODERN PRESS,
13 AND 14, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1884.
(_All rights reserved._)
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER I.--ETHICS AND THE UNIFICATION OF KNOWLEDGE.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW 1
CHAPTER II.--THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW OF THE EVOLUTION
OF ETHICS 27
CHAPTER III.--THE BIOLOGICAL VIEW OF ETHICS 36
CHAPTER IV.--THE SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW 56
CHAPTER V.--THE ETHICAL IMPERATIVE 63
CHAPTER VI.--SYSTEMS OF ETHICS 75
CHAPTER VII.--THE EVOLUTION OF FREE WILL 83
CHAPTER VIII.--EVOLUTION AND RELIGION 107
CHAPTER IX.--SUMMARY 120
PREFACE.
This volume completes the critical examination of Mr. Spencer's system
of Philosophy already pursued through two previous volumes entitled
respectively "On Mr. Spencer's Formula of Evolution," and "On Mr.
Spencer's Unification of Knowledge." The entire task has been undertaken
by a student for the use of students. It cannot be of much use to the
general reader, as it presumes and indeed requires a very intimate
knowledge of Mr. Spencer's works. For those who do not wish to enter
into detailed examination perhaps Chapter I. of the "Unification of
Knowledge" will afford a good epitome of the line of criticism; and this
may be followed, if desired, by a perusal of the "Formula of Evolution."
It is believed that the most serious piece of criticism against Mr.
Spencer's system will be found in the examination of his re-constructive
Biology in Chapter V. of the "Unification," and in the examination of
the origin of organic molecules commencing at page 30 of the "Formula
of Evolution." Evidently of the highest importance in a system of
philosophy conceived in the manner in which Mr. Spencer presents it,
this point of transition between the inorganic and the organic with its
dependent histories is of the very deepest fundamental interest, and
upon the question whether it is well or badly treated depends the
practical value of his philosophy as applied to human concerns.
In our opinion, whatever of worth there is in Mr. Spencer's works (and
there is very much), derives its value from _a posteriori_ grounds and
not from its _a priori_ reliance upon first principles, nor from its
place in a deductive system of cosmic philosophy. It has not fallen to
our lot, nor has it been our object, to appraise the separate or
incidental value of Mr. Spencer's works. Our view has been limited to
the single object of examining them in the mode in which he presents
them, as forming a connected system of philosophy. We have done so
because he sets forth his works to us in this light, and evidently if
they can be so accepted, it would be a gift to humanity of the highest
value, for it would lend cogency to every past and confer a guidance to
all future ages, forming a crowning glory to the intellectual
achievements of the human race.
It is therefore to this point that we address our examination, and in
no unfriendly spirit; for the object Mr. Spencer had in view was one
which appealed to every sentiment and every intellectual aspiration
within us. But we feel bound to say how sadly we have been disappointed.
We have found the object of our admiration to be like Nebuchadnezzar's
dream god, a thing apparently perfect and complete in configuration but
like the image compounded of iron and clay and precious stones
inevitably falling to pieces under the strain of sustained criticisms.
Mr. Spencer's philosophic conception was indeed imposing, and before its
magnificent proportions many have bowed down in sincere respect. But his
cosmical scheme when carefully examined proved to be constructed of
terms which had no fixed and definite meaning, which were in fact merely
symbols of symbolic conceptions, conceptions themselves symbolic because
they were not understood--and the moment we began to put them to use as
having definite values they landed us forthwith in alternative
contradictions! Then to effect cosmical evolution, which is a process of
imperceptible objective change, what was necessary, but to adopt a
system of imperceptible word changes, so that the imperceptible word
changes accompanying the imperceptible objective changes should lead us
in the end to the completed results, and the process of evolution should
thus be made comprehensible! In this manner over the spaces of an
enormous work have we been skilfully led by a master of language till we
find ourselves in imagination following out mentally the actual
processes of the universe. But after all it has only been a process, in
our own minds, of the skilful substitution of words!
Errors to be successful must be big and bold. Fallacies of reasoning are
detected on a medium scale, but when they are "writ large" it is
difficult to detect them. Trains of syllogisms are sometimes more
effective because they are vast than because they are true. Let them be
imposing in their language and grand in their proportions, we naturally
bow down to power, even if it is only power of largeness. When dealing
with Mr. Spencer's reasonings we feel a certain awe as if we were
contradicting the forces of the universe--seemingly allied to him. We
feel conscious of an impertinence in treating of such great matters,
dealt with in such a mighty sweep--disdainful of precision and
consistency. The transformations and evolutions of reasoning in Mr.
Spencer's works are no less wonderful than his treatment of words. The
mind is swept along by an indiscernable but mighty flow, and sometimes
after mysterious disappearances of consecutiveness between volumes or
chapters, we find ourselves landed in a satisfied but bewildered manner
at a conclusion about which we cannot but wonder however we arrived
there.
By such terms as equilibration, including the theory of the moving
equilibrium; by such terms as polarity plastic and coercive; and by
plausible similarities between modes of process, we are deluded into
supposing we understand the constructive progress of nature and are made
to feel happy and proud of our knowledge. A great self satisfaction
attends the student who believes himself rightly to understand the
universe. We are pleased with our teacher, and are still more pleased
with ourselves.
But the real difficulty appears when the necessity for exposition
arises. If one undertakes to explain, if one has to condense and
solidify for the purpose of teaching, if one wishes to make others
understand, and share the knowledge one has attained, then indeed our
difficulties commence. What seemed so grand and alluring to look at will
not stand the ordinary handling of scientific language and logical
statement as between man and man. The illusion vanishes, the system has
gone. In these remarks we speak only of Mr. Spencer's cosmical system.
Of the general value of this work as a philosopher we express no
opinion. In the estimation of competent thinkers it is very great.
Fiske, Youmans, Carveth Read, Ribot, Maudsley, Clifford, Sully, Grant
Allen, Gopinay, and others are all working on Spencerian lines, but we
do not understand that they accept the cosmical explanation of Mr.
Spencer. He marks not the age of complete accomplishment but the age of
transition. He has not grasped the solution of problems, but he has
shewn the direction of future studies. He has failed in his grand
endeavour, but he has shown what to aim at and has pointed the way. Much
of his detailed work has been good and effective, and therefore one
feels some compunction in writing of him so severely. Nevertheless a man
of such eminence must not be held sacred from criticism, but on the
contrary, just by reason of his eminence and consequent influence, must
his work be well examined before it is accepted and approved. This is
the task we have set ourselves and which may now be considered as
complete. We have approached the study without any prepossessions, and
we have endeavoured, while being very strict, to be perfectly fair and
honest in our presentations of Mr. Spencer's theories. Naturally the
work has been long and tedious, and where so many contradictory and
indistinct expressions of opinion are given it has been necessary to
deal largely in quotations. This has been done in justice both to
ourselves and to our author. If we have succeeded in bringing out the
main lines of thought for the future use of students we shall have
accomplished our end. It is only by very strict thinking and discussion
that truth is finally evolved.
A few words must be added as to the teleological implications which a
_Westminster_ reviewer has discovered in our previous works, and has
regarded as vitiating the whole of their reasoning. The subject of
teleology is a very interesting and puzzling one, and is bound to
receive careful attention from the student of nature. It requires much
consideration as to what is meant by the term. There may be a natural
teleology apart from a supernatural teleology. We have no very clear
conceptions upon this point ourselves as yet, but are at present engaged
upon the study of the question. Intention and design are exemplified in
human actions, means to an end are adopted by many animals; the "Moving
Equilibrium" theory, and the "Happy Accident" theory alike seem
inadequate to account for the origin of natural teleology or even for
all variations of species; and the study of biological developments
suggests to us the presence and activity of a subjective factor related
to physical factors by some law to which may be due the origin of some
of the biological variations. Mr. Spencer's theory of biological
variations as internal forces generated by external forces, and thus
acting as a counterbalance in opposition to an inimical force, or in
harmony with a favourable force, having for its object the protection or
sustentation of the organism, is an altogether different theory from the
agnostic "Happy Accident" hypothesis of the naturalist school. It
implies the origin of biological variations as means adapted to ends in
the preservation of the organism or species, and if this is not found
workable on the physical equilibration hypothesis, some extension of
theory is required to account for the origin of biological variations in
which teleological implications are involved, although this theory may
be truly naturalistic and in perfect harmony with an orderly development
in the manner of evolution. If we cannot predicate an anthropomorphic
teleological mind at the beginning of things, nevertheless a teleology
appears to be involved in biological developments and requires a
naturalistic explanation.
M. Lionel Dauriac[1] enquires how it comes about that, while accepting
the theory of Evolution, we write a book of 476 pages against its most
illustrious exponent, and asks us to explain our acceptance of the
doctrine as a whole. It is quite true, as he states, that we repudiate a
materialistic explanation, and it is on this ground that we join issue
with Mr. Spencer, inasmuch as, notwithstanding Mr. Spencer's own formal
repudiation, all the formulas of explanation upon which he attempts the
reconstruction of the universe are materialistic. The factors of
chemistry, and the laws of physics, together with the laws of
equilibration and polarity, are all purely materialistic in character.
By the aid of these factors and these laws alone we do not think it
possible to understand and explain the history of cosmical evolution. Do
we then accept a spiritual evolution to which the materialistic has been
altogether subordinate? No. We do not understand the operations of the
subjective apart from the material organism. It seems to us that there
are material factors, and factors which are subjective, and what is
wanted is the law of their correlation. When we say that we accept
Evolution, we mean that we accept the theory of an orderly progress from
a state of indefinite, incoherent simplicity to a state of definite
coherent complexity. We discern two sets or kinds of factors, the
materialistic and the subjective, but we are unable sufficiently to
understand them and their laws of correlation to lay down a formula of
interaction of such a nature as to explain the orderly development which
we recognise.
This is a difficulty which has not been overlooked by Mr. Spencer. He
would escape it in two ways. Firstly by a mysticism, through which after
the definite meaning he has given to his terms has been found to fail in
actual work he changes all his fundamental terms into "symbolic
conceptions." Why? Because they have no meaning; and if you give them a
meaning the conclusions from them land the student in irreconcilable
contradictions. Out of this mysticism no progress is possible. Secondly
by means of the "double aspect" theory. According to this theory
everything is both material and subjective, as you choose to regard it,
and may be explained and accounted for in laws of the relations of
either set of factors. It is true that phenomena may be so described,
but it is not true that they can be so explained. There is an undoubted
concomitance between the bodily act and the conscious feeling, but the
real question is this,--Does the conscious feeling wholly depend upon
the physical series of events and has itself no effects on the physical
series? Is it produced without producing? Is it something occurring in
connexion with certain motions in the nerves of the organism and
therefore dependent upon and wholly produced by the physical factors in
their interrelation, according to the known chemical and physical laws
of the factors? If it is so determined, and does not determine as part
in a chain of causation it cannot be said to interfere with the
materialistic explanation. That is complete in itself. The only question
left is this:--How comes it about that some portions of the physical
series of phenomena have this strange accompaniment of consciousness? A
very interesting but comparatively unimportant question. The theory that
phenomena have two sides is of no use whatever in the endeavour towards
the statement of a cosmical formula of explanation. The result of our
studies is to the effect that there are physical factors and subjective
factors alike produced and producing. We aim at the statement of their
law of correlation, and in this we would seek the cosmical formula. We
however seek it in vain, and we do not think it possible to attain it.
In the meantime we look to the development of the subjective factor in
life, and more especially in human life, as a fact of the greatest
interest, the more so that we discern in that development an orderly
progress in a well marked manner; and it is our task to understand the
laws of that orderly development. This study has to be undertaken along
with the study of material Evolution; and although we may not fully
understand our problem, there is much that we can understand and much to
make our views large and sympathetic and our minds expansive in working
out the great questions that are set before us.
The study of Ethics from the Evolutionist's point of view assumes an
altogether different phase from the old methods of inquiry and rests
upon an altogether different basis. Its ground of authority is seen to
rest in the very nature of humanity and does not come to him as an
imposed law. Confidence is first shaken and then fully restored. From
the new point of view the merit of all preceding systems is seen, and
how they all fall into harmony in a wonderful manner in the consensus of
mutual support and enforce ethical law by an united authority.
The chief merit of Mr. Spencer's "Data of Ethics" is that it puts the
study upon an entirely new basis in grafting it upon the study of the
larger science of Biology. Heretofore the study has been isolated, and
supposed to be complete within its own borders. Henceforth no professor
or student will be considered competent to express opinions without
being well grounded in the study of Biological and Psychological
evolution. Ethics, along with Sociology, must be studied as part of the
greater movement.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] "Revue Philosophique," Dec. 1883.
ON MR. SPENCER'S DATA OF ETHICS.
CHAPTER I.
ETHICS AND THE UNIFICATION OF KNOWLEDGE.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW.
Always a very complex problem, the study of ethics, in Mr. Spencer's
works, becomes in some respects still more complex from the necessity he
is under of affiliating it in some way upon the cosmical process.
Conceiving all knowledge to be capable of unification as a system of
causation, so that when the relations of the original factors are
understood, all histories are merely corollaries from these ultimate
truths, Mr. Spencer feels bound, in the first place, to show that each
particular science falls into its due place in the logical scheme.
Consequently, one of the main ideas permeating the "Data of Ethics" is
this view of ethics as interpretable only by an adequate knowledge of
the cosmical process in which it forms a feature.
Indeed, the proposition is laid down at the outset that parts can only
be properly understood through a knowledge of the wholes of which they
form part.[2] Upon this Mr. Spencer reasons that since ethics deals
with purposed conduct, that kind of conduct can only be understood
through a scientific knowledge of conduct in general, which again forms
part of the study of action in general, bringing us at once to the
cosmical process upon the understanding of which, therefore, depends the
understanding of our special subject.
This philosophic relation of Ethics to the cosmical process is referred
to in the preface as being, in fact, the main object Mr. Spencer had in
view in his elaborate series of volumes, and is more explicitly stated
in Chapter IV. of the work under review, in which Mr. Spencer
considering "The Ways of Judging Conduct," justifies the course he thus
pursues. Here it is pointed out that in the systems of all preceding
authors the idea of causation has been insufficiently recognised or has
even been altogether ignored--an assertion which is thereupon justified
by a review of the Theological, Political, Intuitional, and Utilitarian
schools of moral philosophers. Mr. Spencer thereupon proceeds (¶ 22)
"Thus, then, is justified the allegation made at the outset, that,
irrespective of their distinctive characters and their special
tendencies, all the current methods of ethics have one general
defect--they neglect ultimate causal connexions. Of course, I do not
mean that they wholly ignore the natural consequences of actions; but I
mean that they recognise them only incidentally. They do not erect into
a method the ascertaining of necessary relations between causes and
effects, and deducing rules of conduct from formulated statements of
them.
"Every science begins by accumulating observations, and presently
generalises these empirically; but only when it reaches the stage at
which its empirical generalisations are included in a rational
generalisation does it become developed science. Astronomy has already
passed through its successive stages; first, collections of facts, then
inductions from them, and lastly deductive interpretations of these, as
corollaries from a universal principle of action among masses in space.
Accounts of structures and tabulations of strata, grouped and compared,
have led gradually to the assigning of various classes of geological
changes to igneous and aqueous actions; and it is now tacitly admitted
that geology becomes a science proper, only as fast as such changes are
explained in terms of those natural processes which have arisen in the
cooling and solidifying Earth, exposed to the Sun's heat and the action
of the Moon upon its ocean. The science of life has been, and is still,
exhibiting a like series of steps; the evolution of organic forms at
large is being affiliated on physical actions in operation from the
beginning; and the vital phenomena each organism presents, are coming to
be understood as connected sets of changes, in parts formed of matters
that are affected by certain forces, and disengage other forces. So is
it with mind. Early ideas concerning thought and feeling ignored
everything like cause, save in recognising those effects of habit which
were forced on men's attention and expressed in proverbs; but there are
growing up interpretations of thought and feeling as correlates of the
actions and reactions of a nervous structure, that is influenced by
outer changes and works in the body adapted changes, the implication
being that psychology becomes a science, as fast as these relations of
phenomena are explained as consequences of ultimate principles.
Sociology, too, represented down to recent times only by stray ideas
about social organisation, scattered through the masses of worthless
gossip furnished us by historians, is coming to be recognised by some as
also a science; and such adumbrations of it as have from time to time
appeared in the shape of empirical generalisations, are now beginning to
assume the character of generalisations made coherent by derivation from
causes lying in human nature placed under given conditions. Clearly
then, _ethics, which is a science dealing with the conduct of associated
human beings_, regarded under one of its aspects, has to undergo a like
transformation, and, at present undeveloped, can be considered a
developed science only when it has undergone this transformation.
"A preparation in the simpler sciences is pre-supposed. Ethics has a
physical aspect, since it treats of human activities, which, in common
with all expenditures of energy, conform to the law of the persistence
of energy; moral principles must conform to physical necessities. It has
a biological aspect, since it concerns certain effects, inner and outer,
individual and social, of the vital changes going on in the highest type
of animal. It has a psychological aspect, for its subject matter is an
aggregate of actions that are prompted by feelings and guided by
intelligence. And it has a sociological aspect, for these actions, some
of them directly, and all of them indirectly, affect associated beings.
"What is the implication? Belonging under one aspect to each of these
sciences--physical, biological, psychological, sociological--it can find
its ultimate interpretations only in those fundamental truths which are
common to all of them. Already we have concluded in a general way that
conduct at large, including the conduct Ethics deals with, is to be
fully understood only as an aspect of evolving life; and now we are
brought to this conclusion in a more special way.
"Here, then, we have to enter on the consideration of moral phenomena as
phenomena of evolution; being forced to do this by finding that they
form a part of the aggregate of phenomena which evolution has wrought
out. If the entire visible universe has been evolved--if the solar
system as a whole, the earth as part of it, the life in general which
the earth bears, as well as that of each individual organism--if the
mental phenomena displayed by all creatures, up to the highest, in
common with the phenomena presented by aggregates of these highest--if
one and all conform to the laws of evolution; then the necessary
implication is that those phenomena of conduct in these highest
creatures with which morality is concerned, also conform."[3]
In this passage Mr. Spencer propounds morality or ethics as a matter for
scientific study, only to be understood or explained as part of general
conduct when it is capable of explanation deductively from antecedent
causes. The distinction recognised between conduct called moral and
conduct regarded as immoral is only to be understood when, after a
historical survey of human actions and of the actions of organisms in
general, we not only perceive its immediately antecedent causes, but,
going behind them, recognise the ultimate necessity of their occurrence
in the very nature of the universe. This reveals the special features of
Mr. Spencer's method in the treatment of his subject as distinguished
from that followed by Mr. Leslie Stephen in his "Science of Ethics," a
distinction which we may conveniently mark by terming them respectively
the Philosophic and the Scientific methods. The former term we use in
the sense assigned to it in the definition given by Mr. Spencer in
"First Principles."[4]
A philosophy is complete when the mind has been able to form for itself
such an appraisement of the relations and conditions of factors at a
period sufficiently remote to ante-date any great amount of complexity
as will enable us deductively to frame a history of developments which
may correspond with the actual history of sequences in the concrete
universe. If this appraisement of a remote cosmos characterised by
comparative simplicity nevertheless admits the existence of many factors
whose differences are not accounted for, philosophy is so far formally
incomplete: but as the determination of these points lies beyond the
powers of human reason, philosophy may justly be regarded as practically
complete if it unifies from this point of view all the knowledge with
which the human mind is conversant. If we are able to include all the
sciences in one coherent whole nothing more can be expected of
philosophy--beyond that lies the realm of speculation and the
Unknowable.
The scope of the sciences is not so ambitious. Their aim is limited
within a much narrower purview. They seek merely to ascertain the laws
which subsume special classes of phenomena. They recognise causation and
their inductions are valid to the extent of the classes of facts
expressed in any particular law. But each science or class of facts is
severally and separately worked upon even though the progress of study
is ever disclosing the mutual dependence of the various sciences.
It is very evident that there must be great imperfections in our scheme
of knowledge so long as there remain great blanks between the sciences.
But this is a natural condition of the progress of thought. On the other
hand a complete philosophic system such as that referred to above, and
at which Mr. Spencer aims, would throw a flood of light upon each
particular department if the mutual relation of all problems could be
deduced from ascertained relations of the original factors. But it is
also clear that if we think we have framed such a philosophy without
having really succeeded in so doing, or at any rate without having
succeeded in making others understand or accept it, then the supposed
philosophy becomes a confusing element in the exposition of a scientific
problem. In the work under review the philosophical attempt is very
regrettable for it spoils the exposition of a scientific treatment,
surpassing all former expositions, since it dims the clearness of the
argument, and hinders the force of its practical application.
Such is our judgment of Mr. Spencer's "Data of Ethics." It contains at
once an excellent scientific treatment of the subject and a weak attempt
to affiliate it upon an impotent philosophy. To the philosophical or
cosmical aspect of the work we will confine ourselves in the present
chapter, so that we shall hereafter be free to devote our attention to
the more solid scientific treatment of the questions at issue which it
presents.
The students of Mr. Spencer's previous volumes will have observed that
although he states the problem of evolution as a deductive one, he has
yet regarded evolution in a different aspect in the working out of each
specific problem. Thus it is very noteworthy that throughout the
Biological, Psychological, and Sociological expositions, Mr. Spencer has
regarded the establishment of the fact of evolution by the accretion of
insensible changes as equivalent to an actual affiliation of the
sciences upon the theory of evolution, utterly regardless of his own
rigid requirement that these changes should be explained and accounted
for by the general deductions of cosmical evolution. The histories of
organisms, for instance, exhibit gradual development, and therefore are
supposed to conform to the definition of evolution at large. But if
these changes are not intellectually discerned as the result of
antecedent conditions and traceable to the relations of the ultimate
factors recognised by the philosophy, then the affiliation of the
science upon evolution in general is not made good. While the form and
outside show are present, the organic connexion is not exhibited. But it
is a characteristic of Mr. Spencer's mode of exposition, that when the
latter fails, the former takes its place. Hence the gradual development
of conduct is evolution of conduct, but it is an evolution of which we
want an explanation. We seek it in Biology, but find that Biology also
is a gradual increment of insensible changes of which again we seek in
vain for an explanation.
The effect of this mode of presenting evolution or the unification of
knowledge is heightened by the seemingly systematic manner of its
exposition. Development is shown to be universally characterised by
progress in three forms--namely, from a simple, indefinite, incoherent
state to a complex, definite, and coherent state: and the wonderful
scope which the universe affords, both in time and space, for
historically exhibiting these traits, overwhelms the mind with a sense
of the universality of evolution, in spite of the fact that all the time
the very point of the question is missed in the absence of any
explanation. We recognise the gradual development, but where is the
deductive connexion? Where is the promised system of corollaries from
original factors which shall account for the historical development?
Thus, when in the "Data of Ethics" we find a reference to the Biology,
the Psychology, and the Sociology as parts of an established
philosophical system we are apt to suppose that the views as to ethics
which Mr. Spencer expresses derive their authority from an antecedent
apprehension of the cosmical process; whereas this is not really the
case: and although it is essential to the study that ethics should be
viewed as dependent upon the sciences named, yet such a connexion is not
shown as one of logical order; we are only told that Ethics exhibits
similar traits in its order of development.
But in addition to this foisting of the sciences upon philosophy by
means of general similarities of history, the student will find that
whatever inner deductive warrant is set forth is badly conceived in the
appraisement of the original factors--Matter, Motion, and Force--terms
to which no definite conceptions can be attached. And should any one be
so rash as to attach to them such definite meanings as would render
their logical use possible, then the deductive process which would have
to be undertaken to render them into corollaries corresponding to
concrete histories would very shortly bring him to confusion. Should
he, again, confine himself to the definite chemical factors existent in
the primordial nebulæ, then his deductive attempt would bring him to the
impassable gulf at the commencement of life. And, moreover, should he
import the factor of sentiency into some simple chemical aggregates, and
should he be able to set forth some gradual development of mind in
correlation with gradual changes of physical organism, then again in the
absence of any knowledge as to the relations of the two he would find
himself unable to work out the deductive process and fail in the system
of _à priori_ explanations which philosophy requires. For philosophy,
according to Mr. Spencer, demands a deductive process commencing with
the apprehension of the relations subsisting between the factors of the
universe at some particular stage, which deductive process shall be a
counterpart of the actual histories of the universe.
Such deductive explanations Mr. Spencer does attempt--mainly in the
Biology--the most important as to results, and the most badly reasoned
of all his works. It is attempted firstly in a very concrete manner, by
a consideration of the properties of the chemical substances which form
the bases of organisms, and of the properties of the surrounding
agencies--light, heat, air, water, etc. To the inter-relation of these
are applied the laws of mechanics, such as movement in the direction of
least resistance, etc., and by their instrumentality at last are
organisms supposed to be evolved which have, somehow, a concomitant of
consciousness which is nevertheless not a factor in any action of an
organism. In such a history however, it is found necessary to admit
genesis, reproduction, and heredity, and these, since they cannot be
explained, are accepted without explanation.
It is true that Polarity is called in to assist the endeavour, but it is
a polarity which is the obedient servant of the author, and does as it
is bid, firstly in being so amenable to changed conditions as to alter
conformably with them, and again in being so rigid in its acquired form
as to coerce molecules into definite construction. It is alternately so
pliable and so fixed as, hand over hand, to enable the author to scale
the highest summits of Biology. It is also true that Equilibration is
called in: but then every change in the organic and the inorganic world
turns out to be an equilibration, so that the word becomes devoid of
meaning.
A more special study has to be given to Mr. Spencer's theory of the
moving equilibrium with which he identifies the existence of an
organism, and by means of which he is supposed to bridge over the chasm
between it and the inorganic. The idea is derived from a consideration
of the spinning top, the solar system, and the steam engine, more
particularly if the latter is self-feeding! These are moving equilibria,
and if their motions are disturbed by some external object they will
generate forces in opposition to the environment. This purely mechanical
conception is then rendered into an abstract form by the substitution of
the idea of related _forces_, as constituting a moving equilibrium, and
is found to fit the abstract conception of an organism, so that the
solar system and the organism can both be identified as moving
equilibria. Next, by loosely characterising the behaviour of the solar
system in its relation to its environment, real or hypothetical, as
consisting of changes due to the laws of a moving equilibrium, Mr.
Spencer seeks to show that the adaptations of an organism in response to
changed external conditions are likewise due to the same laws, so that
organisms and their histories are supposed to be explainable or
accounted for both in their origin and in their development in the same
manner as the moving equilibria of the physical world. Thereupon we are
supposed to understand both why organisms generate forces to
counterbalance inimical external forces, and why they generate forces
(adaptations) for securing and absorbing forces of the environment
(food) favourable to their continued existence. It is only what all
moving equilibria do. This biological theory we have discussed at great
length elsewhere,[5] and we then came to the conclusion that it was only
a mockery of a rational explanation. We also found that the facts of
Genesis and the Law of Heredity were wholly inexplicable by means of a
study of physics or by means of a study of the nature and laws of the
moving equilibrium. So that altogether we found the main requirements of
a philosophical explanation of biological facts very far from being
complied with.
As part of the deductive system which our philosophy requires, we have
now to consider the origin and development of purposed actions--the
subject-matter, namely, of our present study which is to lead us up to
the ultimate study of Ethics proper.
Resuming the consideration of the problem at the point where we left off
in our reference to the explanations of biology, we have first to review
the arguments which would explain the origin of purposed actions in the
nature and laws of the moving equilibrium. For if the actions of
organisms are thus explainable, so must be the purposed actions or
purposed conduct of organisms, and Mr. Spencer himself expressly
includes them in the biological definition. And indeed it is doubtful
whether "purpose" is not covertly introduced in the very definition of
life as "the continuous adaptation of inner relations to outer
relations."
The question is a very nice one, and brings us at once to the obscure
confines of the organic and the inorganic worlds. How, for instance,
from the laws of the moving equilibrium, as derived from the study of
the solar system, are we to regard the movements of an infusorium? "An
infusorium swims randomly about, determined in its course not by a
perceived object to be pursued or escaped, but, apparently, by varying
stimuli in its medium; and its acts unadjusted in any appreciable way to
ends, lead it now into contact with some nutritive substance which it
absorbs, and now into the neighbourhood of some creature by which it is
swallowed and digested.... The conduct is constituted of actions so
little adjusted to ends, that life continues only as long as the
accidents of the environment are favourable."[6]
This is one of Mr. Spencer's transitional passages. The infusorium is a
moving equilibrium. Consequently it rearranges its forces for
self-preservation in opposition to inimical forces of the environment,
and in harmony with favoring forces of the environment. The special
adjustment it displays is motion. But this is not communicated motion of
a mechanical description, such as the kick given to a foot-ball. Nor,
apparently, are we to regard its motions as due to a series of
mechanical motions of the molecules of the environment. The action of
the environment is expressed as being a stimulus. Does this mean a
chemical action? Or does it refer to the action of heat and light? If so
it means that the attractions and repulsions of atoms and the motions of
ether and of molecules, account for the movements of the infusorium.
There is certainly no "purpose" in such a theory. But then the question
arises, how do we apply the theory of the moving equilibrium to such an
assemblage of atoms thus acted upon to account for the fact that the
assemblage of atoms endeavours to prolong its existence by defence and
absorption or by absorption only? If it be said that it does not do so,
and that its movements have no food object, but are simply the effect of
chemical and mechanical action, then it is not an animal displaying
life, inasmuch as it does not adapt means to an end--motions to the end
of sustenance. If it be regarded as a moving equilibrium in this sense,
it is one of the same sort as the solar system, and not one of the sort
known as animals. Nevertheless, Mr. Spencer regards it as displaying
life, yet very little adjusted to ends; but again he regards its actions
as determined by external stimuli, without, however, explaining his
meaning.
If we are to regard the motions of the infusorium as displaying life, it
must be by regarding them as adaptations of inner relations to outer
relations--the outer relations being food; but if its actions are merely
chemically and mechanically determined, then its conduct is not adapted
to or balanced against the action of any external relations, but is the
submissive consequent thereof. But if its conduct is altogether
determined by external relations we seem to be landed in a paradox. The
only escape is by the obvious inference that the definition of life
advanced by Mr. Spencer always implies an adaptation or adjustment or
action having the definite twofold object in view of sustenance and
self-protection employed _against_ the inimical forces of the
environment. Life adaptations are always for the accomplishment of the
end of self-preservation, either by the procuring of food, or by defence
against enemies--self-preservation primarily and afterwards the
continuation of the race. Therefore, if we regard the movements of the
infusoria as included in the definition of life we must regard them as
having in view the sustenance of the creatures. They are acts adapted to
ends. Are they then to be regarded as purposed actions? Life adaptations
seem to be distinguished from the changes wrought by external forces
upon a physical moving equilibrium in the fact, namely, that they act
towards a definite end, and therefore come into the class of purposed
actions. We cannot do more than indicate the difficulty. If we say these
actions are not purposed we allow that there may be purposed adaptation
of means to ends by chemistry and mechanics. If we say that chemistry
and mechanics do this, then we have to revise our meaning of chemistry
and mechanics, and that in a much more thorough manner than Mr. Spencer
has done in his treatment of the moving equilibrium.
That there are biological adjustments which do not manifest purpose we
experience every day in the thickening of the skin and the changes
wrought by climate or daily avocation, although it is true these
adjustments may receive a scientific explanation independently of their
being adaptations of means to ends. We also find that there are reflex
actions of organisms which take place in response to external stimuli
without any conscious purpose, such as breathing, digesting, &c. We are
also acquainted with the fact that purposed actions become by long habit
automatic. Indeed we have more experience of purposed actions becoming
automatic than of automatic or reflex actions becoming purposed.
Can there then be purpose without consciousness? There are adaptations
in the vegetable world as well as in the animal, and of these we do not
predicate conscious design. Nor can we, on the theory of life as the
adaptation of a moving equilibrium to its environment, admit that these
changes are due to mere happy accidents of origin and survival, for we
are required to account for them as necessary results of their existence
as moving equilibria. Yet if so the adjustments are so complex, so
marvellous in their relations to the insect world and the animal world
generally in view of their preservation and the propagation of their
species, that purpose or means adapted to ends is the apparent
characteristic. Means adapted to ends is denied in the "Happy Accident"
theory, and is sought to be explained by the "Moving Equilibrium"
theory. Yet when we come to consider the abstract conception of a moving
equilibrium derived from our solar system we can discern no endeavour
towards self-sustenance and self defence. No adaptations are there made
to secure either of these objects. There is no purpose manifested, and
no adjustment made in view of ends to be secured. On the other hand,
there are many adaptations in the animal and vegetable worlds which are
not consciously purposed. Since, however, ours is a critical task and
not a reconstructive work we need do no more than point out that
purposed actions in particular, and biological adaptations as a whole,
are not explainable by regarding organisms as aggregates of the chemical
elements acted upon by physical forces and constituting merely physical
moving equilibria, of which the laws are similar to those derived from a
consideration of moving equilibria like the solar system. Such a theory
does not admit of purposed action.
Stated in the abstract, the problem is how to explain the origin of
purpose in a moving equilibrium--commencing from the solar system and
proceeding to a self-feeding engine and pursuing our investigation to
the abstract moving equilibrium of forces in which external inimical or
favourable forces generate internal forces as a counterbalance, either
of opposition or harmony of adjustment. Thus stated, the problem is
purely of a dynamic nature, and would give an understanding of purpose
as a dynamic relation of aggregates of forces. This is the true
Spencerian view to take of the problem and its mode of settlement, but
it is one to which Mr. Spencer does not apply himself. In the absence of
such a study Mr. Spencer forsakes the true line of explanation required
by his philosophy.
But we think if we proceed more deeply into this study we shall find
purpose connected with consciousness. The question arises, must all
purpose be conscious purpose? Purpose implies the direction of action,
it implies an interval of time, it implies the accomplishment of a
result. In these respects it differs from chemical and mechanical
action. We have to ask what place consciousness finds in the
constitution and action of a moving equilibrium. Evidently it has no
place in the solar system, for physicists can make their calculations
without taking it into consideration as a factor. Yet the ideal or
abstract moving equilibrium, by whose aid we are endeavouring to
understand the actions of organisms, is derived from the consideration
of the solar system as a moving equilibrium. But reducing the problem
from the abstract to the concrete study of an organism, we have to ask
what place consciousness holds in a moving equilibrium of oxygen,
nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, etc., in relation with an environment of
heat, light, etc. We find that it is in the main a factor in all those
classes of actions which we term purposed--that in so far as actions
depart from the chemical and mechanical, that in so far as aggregates
manifest the characteristics of life--namely, the adaptation of inner
relations to outer relations--the nearer do they approach the most
complete adaptation of means to the ends of complete living, and the
more do they manifest conscious purpose.
The theory has been propounded that consciousness is the result of
complexity in the combination of the chemical elements, a complexity
which can be explained on purely physical grounds. Mr. Spencer's biology
is partly worked so as to prove this theory. But it is evident that no
more can be got out of a deductive theory than is contained in the
original factors. It is useless to say that we do not sufficiently know
all the properties of the original factors, because that is to abandon
this particular theory, and to acknowledge its inadequacy. The admission
necessitates an attempt to re-state the original forces of the factors.
If this can be done it is equivalent to propounding a new theory, which
again must be judged by its deductive efficacy.
The theory that complexity of nervous structure--a structure produced by
chemical and mechanical combination--suffices to explain memory,
reflection, judgment, choice, and purpose, has been treated by Dr. Bain
and Professor Clifford at considerable length, and has been criticised
in our former works in great detail.[7]
The theory that organisms are the result of chemical and mechanical
combinations, and that consciousness is a concomitant of some processes
in the continuous existence of such physical combinations, throws all
the burthen of explanation just as fully upon the line of physical
causation as if there were no such concomitant of consciousness
whatsoever. The determining causes are wholly physical, and the chain of
sequence is complete within the lines of chemical and mechanical
relations. The fact that independent and concomitant consciousness
accompanies some of the actions in question is an interesting
circumstance, but although consciousness is produced as an effect, it
never on this theory produces any effects itself.
The attempt to amend the conceptions of the original chemical factors
(the sixty or seventy so-called elements,) and of the physical factors
(heat, light, etc.,) by the association with them of mind, feeling,
etc., has at various times produced vague theories. More particularly of
later years Professor Clifford's theory of mind-stuff has attracted a
great deal of attention. But, singular to say, Professor Clifford only
endeavoured to work out his theory in some vague semi-mechanical,
semi-subjective kind of way. It was not of such a sort that, given a
nebula such as we supposed to be the predecessor of the solar system, we
should be able to deduce from it the existing universe. The proper
statement of such a problem would be a statement of the relations not
merely of mind-stuff, but of mind-oxygen, mind-nitrogen, etc. The
conception would have to be of such a nature as to express the
mind-factor, mental side, or subjective aspect of oxygen, as related to
the mind-factor of nitrogen, etc., and how they variously affected the
conduct of the doubly-constituted atoms or of the more complex molecules
into which they formed themselves. But this is a mere indication of the
larger task of estimating the whole of the elementary substances, and
estimating the value and the action of their relative mind-factors. From
this would have to be determined the law of growth by which increasing
complexity evolved the continually increasing power of the mind-factor
in determining actions. Upon this might rest a rational basis for a
definition of life of such sort that the organic could be recognised as
arising out of the inorganic. And since the organic, in its latest and
highest development, is mainly distinguished by purposed actions,
purposed actions might be deemed to have evolved in a natural way out of
actions which were not purposed. But such a theory is not capable of
definite statement, and our philosophic object in endeavouring to
account for the origin of purposed action out of non-purposed action is
as far off as ever.
It might be as well here for the full satisfaction of the student, to
consider how far the origin of purposed action is taken account of by
Mr. Darwin, or is to be accounted for by his methods. There is a wide
distinction between Mr. Spencer's treatment of Biology and that of Mr.
Darwin. Mr. Spencer aims at a complete logical deductive system, and
endeavours to show how in the very nature of things, everything that is,
must have been what it is. Mr. Darwin's endeavour is not so ambitious.
He confines his studies to the field of biology, and to past histories
of living creatures, as preserved for us in the geological record. His
is a purely scientific work, not trespassing beyond the generalisation
of the facts with which he deals. These are large and immensely
important; so much so, that they cover the whole history of living
things: but his explanations only go a certain way. They are not
fundamental, and we are only led backwards in time to the original
twilight and ultimate darkness. His theory is strictly causational. The
explanation of existing organisms is to be found in the relations of
antecedent factors. Part of these we understand, and part of them we do
not understand. We do not understand the wherefore of genesis and
heredity, but we know them to be facts, and they form the basis for
large explanations. For if organisms are modifiable, ever-increasing
changes of structure and function can be produced and reproduced. The
increment of induced changes in various directions may in succeeding
generations be such as to obliterate all semblance of relationship to
the original ancestor. What are the laws of these changes it is Mr.
Darwin's great achievement to have explained. The struggle for
existence, the survival of the fittest, the adaptation to new
environments by the use and disuse of parts, the changes induced by
change of climate and food, or by the action of new organisms in the
environment, all these considerations open out to the astonished and
admiring gaze of man vast and interesting histories of changes such as
a discerning mind like Mr. Grant Allen revels in in his rambles through
the English fields.
The question arises how far Mr. Darwin's theories can be extended
philosophically, so as to explain what he accepts unexplained, viz.:
genesis, heredity, the origin of organisms out of the inorganic, the
gradual development of consciousness, the increase of feeling and
intelligence, and the advent of purposed conduct directed to the
achievement of definite and deferred ends? For all these points he
leaves undealt with as not coming within his scientific province.
Evidently his theories are not fitted to explain what they take for
granted. They cannot explain what they are founded upon. The origin of
organisms is unexplained: propagation of the species is accepted as an
unexplained fact, so are heredity and the presence of consciousness.
Purposed actions are not accounted for in Mr. Darwin's works.
But there is one point to which we wish to call attention as regards the
different method in which the changes of species are treated by Mr.
Spencer and Mr. Darwin. The former regards all changes as necessitated
by the laws of the moving equilibrium, so that a change of climate of
such a nature as to deprive an organism of the requisite moisture for
continued existence through a long period of time, would absolutely
necessitate some device on its part to counterbalance the external force
of drought. It would be a consequent in the very nature of things that
the plant should become thick and succulent like the cactus, or that the
animal should form for itself a reservoir for the storage of water.
Mr. Darwin's theory is very different. He advances the fact that
organisms, and more particularly those of the lower and simpler forms
constantly produce "sports." These are not chance accidents in the false
metaphysical sense of being uncaused, but are termed accidents as being
produced by some external or internal incident in the growth of the
embryo, which causes it to deviate in some point from the structure of
the parent. This "sport" may be to the advantage or to the detriment of
the new organism. If it should be the latter, it soon perishes: but if
it should assist the organism to a fuller life, then it will live longer
and better, and its progeny will in like manner survive to the detriment
of its fellows of the unimproved type. The accretion of changes produced
in this way, now in one direction, and now in another, together with the
influences elsewhere indicated, might do and no doubt has done much in
the development of species.
To this cause of change we give in no disrespectful spirit, the name of
the "Happy Accident Theory" as opposed to Mr. Spencer's "Moving
Equilibrium Theory," and would ask what it may and may not account for.
It may account for much within the limits of Mr. Darwin's enquiry, but
does it at all account for those fundamental facts which he takes for
granted--genesis, heredity and consciousness, or the origin of the
organic out of the inorganic. Could some inorganic aggregate, produced
by the relations of certain chemical compounds under the action of
light, heat, &c, accidentally take to generation by fission or
otherwise, and then by a succession of sports eventuate in sexual
generation? Could such a chemical combination accidentally become
conscious, and by a succession of sports organise its consciousness
into purpose? Into these regions we think we cannot carry the Happy
Accident Theory--the theory of sports. This is a valid and justifiable
theory within the limits of biology, though even here the estimate of
its results may be exaggerated; but beyond it and behind those limits it
is of no use. The very admission of it is a confession of ignorance and
incapacity to apprehend the exact line of causation; but so long as we
are satisfied that the accident or the sport which gives rise to a
variety, occurs within the scope of factors which we are able to
recognise, the incapacity to account for the special cause of a special
sport does not affect the general theory. But if any one should rashly
extend the application of the theory so as to explain the otherwise
unaccountable presence of a new factor, or advance it as an explanation
of a line of sequences not logically deducible from all that is included
in the mental appraisement of the original factors by which the system
of sequences is to be unified, then he makes a very great mistake
indeed.
It is to guard against such a mistake that we take notice of the proper
limits to the applicability of Mr. Darwin's theory. Indeed we think it
is too commonly supposed that Mr. Darwin's theory is of the
universalistic scope of Mr. Spencer's theories; his work however is
purely of a scientific character relating to the province of Biology.
It will have been noticed that in the preceding argument we have not
dealt with the philosophical problem of the theory of knowledge. We have
simply taken the study of the cosmos in the historical order, finding
the inorganic as antecedent to the organic, the unconscious to the
conscious, a historical order which cannot be disputed whatever theory
of knowledge may be held.
We conclude therefore that in so far as the Data of Ethics is an attempt
to explain purposed actions and their ethical quality upon a
philosophical method of the kind propounded by Mr. Spencer, namely, as
included in a proper understanding of the cosmical process, and of the
histories of the universe consequent upon a knowledge of the relations
of its original factors--so far Mr. Spencer's work must be considered a
failure. That there is much of real scientific value in the work under
review, and much original insight and true apprehension of process, we
hold to be true; but this scientific value is much obscured by the vague
cosmical references which pervade an otherwise admirable study. As
stated at the outset of the chapter, we consider the attempt to
affiliate purposed actions upon the general lines of the cosmical
process to mar the effect of the work in its scientific aspect. The
fault is all the greater since Mr. Spencer rests the full stress of his
theories, not so much upon their limited scientific value, as upon the
soundness of the philosophic basis. For twenty years or more he has been
working from this basis, and in the course of his marvellous work has
had ever in view as his crowning achievement the establishment of Ethics
upon a cosmical basis through a cosmical process of which it should be
the glorious outcome. Ethics should be shown to be dominant and
imperative through the voice of the expanding universe. Yet, except as
showing Ethics to be a part of the study of Biology, the general laws of
the development of which are known, but which in its factors and their
relations and origin is utterly unknown, he has not succeeded. He
might, with the exception indicated, just as well have written his "Data
of Ethics" first as last.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] Data of Ethics, pp. 5 and 6.
[3] Data of Ethics, p. 61.
[4] See "On Mr. Spencer's Unification of Knowledge," Chap. I., ¶ 1, and
Chap. III, ¶ 4.
[5] On Mr. Spencer's "Unification of Knowledge," Chap. V.
[6] Data of Ethics, p. 10.
[7] On Mr. Spencer's "Unification of Knowledge," p. 231, _et seq._; and
see Dr. Bain's reply in "Mind," No. xxxi.