THE SOCIOLOGICAL VIEW.
We now enter upon the study of Ethics proper. Notwithstanding Mr.
Spencer's attempt at the outset of the chapter to identify "right
living" with the universal biological principle that "Given its
environment and its structure, and there is for each kind of creature a
set of actions adapted in their kinds, amounts, and combinations to
secure the highest conservation its nature permits," the fact still
remains that the ethical imperative is drawn from the social
surroundings, and is not derivable from the adaptation to environment,
unless the environment be of a subjective character requiring an
adaptation to it as such. Mr. Spencer considers that "there is a
supposable formula for the activity of each species, which, could it be
drawn out, would constitute a system of morality for that species,"
although "such a system of morality would have little or no reference to
the welfare of others than self and offspring." We cannot concede that
the formula of activities for a worm by which it maintains its
existence, is a formula of morality; nor can we admit that the
longest-lived oyster is the most moral of oysters. Systems of morality
which relate to the welfare of self and offspring alone are in the
latter instance confessedly of a very limited character, and when
entirely confined to self it would seem that we lose all ethical quality
whatsoever. We continually find in Mr. Spencer's exposition that,
notwithstanding his attempt to affiliate Ethics upon the biological law,
it is only in the increased correlation of subjective individuals that
Ethics arises, and it is only the modification of the individual by
society, and the mental or emotional growths in the individual
consequent on the action of the social environment, that constitute the
groundwork of Ethics.
It is true that, since society is composed of individuals, the nature
and constitution of the units has to be considered in their mutual
interaction, and therefore the study must have a biological basis: but
when we have to consider the special action of the compound social
environment upon the individual, the study is not one which can be
properly considered from the purely biological side, nor is it to be
comprised within the formula of individual life. With respect to the
social environment Mr. Spencer says, "This additional factor in the
problem of complete living, is, indeed, so important that the
necessitated modifications of conduct have come to form a chief part of
the code of conduct. Because the inherited desires, which directly refer
to the maintenance of individual life, are fairly adjusted to the
requirements, there has been no need to insist on that conformity to
them which furthers self-conservation. Conversely, because these
desires prompt activities that often conflict with the activities of
others, and because the sentiments responding to other's claims are
relatively weak, moral codes emphasise those restraints on conduct which
the presence of fellow men entails. From the sociological point of view,
then, Ethics becomes nothing else than a definite account of the forms
of conduct that are fitted to the associated state, in such wise that
the lives of each and all may be the greatest possible, alike in length
and breadth. But here we are met by a fact which forbids us thus to put
in the foreground the welfares of citizens, individually considered, and
requires us to put in the foreground the welfare of the society as a
whole. The life of the social organism must, as an end, rank above the
lives of its units. These two ends are not harmonious at the outset, and
though the tendency is towards harmonisation of them, they are still
partially conflicting."[12]
The difficulty alluded to arises from the fact that human society is not
one well-ordered whole, but has been from the first, and still is, split
up into numerous nations having conflicting interests: from which it
follows that there is not a complete homogeneity of duty between man and
man when, for instance, a state of warfare exists.
If now we recognise Ethics as the rule of life imposed by Society upon
the individual, we shall have to recognise great varieties of rule,
according to the nature and objects of the particular Society imposing
the rule, according to the state of development at which that Society
has arrived, and according to the nature of the environment.
The rule of a club over the individuals composing it, the rule of a
church over its members, the rule of any body of men over its
constituent units is founded upon the ethical principle, however
trifling or however serious the objects of the particular association
may be. Those slight or those important social penalties or
commendations which fill up the course of everyday life in business, in
the workshop, in social intercourse--the familiar judgments of
companions or contemporaries--are all of them ethical valuations of
conduct. Slight though some of them may be, they are still enforcements
of social opinions. Man is hedged in on all sides by forces limiting his
action to certain lines of conduct, and this social pressure is as much
the basis of the most forceful ethical commands or prohibitions as of
the most ephemeral influences. The only difference consists in the
importance of the mode in which the various actions affect the general
welfare. But this we shall have occasion to treat of hereafter in
greater detail. It is, however, all a matter of the greater or lesser
degree in which it affects the welfare of the temporary organisation,
the welfare of the family, or the welfare of the permanent community, of
which the individual forms a part.
But it is evident that as the stage of development differs, and as
nations differ in their environments, so there will be different
standards of conduct at different times and places. And therefore,
again, there will be different standards of morality for different sets
of purposes. This must be acknowledged at once.
Hence arise the questions, What can be the obligation of a relative
morality? and--Is there no absolute morality with its imperatives
universal in space and in time?
The question as to absolute morality we reserve: meanwhile we confine
our considerations to a study of the influence of Society upon
individuals. This is disclosed in a study of Sociology.
Living together in a social state necessitates certain negative and,
eventually, positive duties.
"Whether the members of a social group do or do not co-operate, certain
limitations to their individual activities are necessitated by their
association; and after recognising these as arising in the absence of
co-operation, we shall be the better prepared to understand how
conformity to them is effected when co-operation begins.[13]
"What shape, then, must the mutual restraints take when co-operation
begins? or rather, what, in addition to the primary mutual restraints
already specified, are those secondary mutual restraints required to
make co-operation possible? * * * * The reply will be made clearer if we
take the successive forms of co-operation in the order of ascending
complexity. We may distinguish as homogeneous co-operation (1) that in
which like efforts are joined for like ends that are simultaneously
enjoyed. As co-operation that is not completely homogeneous we may
distinguish (2) that in which like efforts are joined for like ends that
are not simultaneously enjoyed. A co-operation of which the
heterogeneity is more distinct is (3) that in which unlike efforts are
joined for like ends. And lastly comes the decidedly heterogeneous
co-operation, (4) that in which unlike efforts are joined for unlike
ends."[14]
The social attainment reaches a full development in the last mentioned
case.
"Only under voluntary agreement then, no longer tacit and vague, but
overt and definite, can co-operation be harmoniously carried on when
division of labour becomes established. And, as in the simplest
co-operation, where like efforts are joined to secure a common good, the
dissatisfaction caused in those who, having expended their labours, do
not get their share of the good, prompts them to cease co-operating; as
in the more advanced co-operation, achieved by exchanging equal labours
of like kind expended at different times, aversion to co-operate is
generated if the expected equivalent of labour is not rendered; so in
this developed co-operation, the failure of either to surrender to the
other that which was avowedly recognized as of like value with the
labour or product given, tends to prevent co-operation by exciting
discontent with its results. And, evidently while antagonisms thus
caused impede the lives of the units, the life of the aggregate is
endangered by diminished cohesion."
"But now we have to recognise the fact that complete fulfilment of these
conditions, original and derived, is not enough. * * * * If no one did
for his fellows anything more than was required by strict performance of
contract, private interests would suffer from the absence of attention
to public interests. The limit of evolution of conduct is consequently
not reached, until, beyond avoidance of direct and indirect injuries to
others, there are spontaneous efforts to further the welfare of others."
The point brought out here is the social pressure of the society upon
the individual, so as to ensure that the actions of the individual
primarily are not inimical to its welfare, and secondarily are
subservient to its welfare. But, of course, since society is composed
of individuals, this pressure must not be of such a character as to be
destructive of the welfare of the individuals of which the society is
composed, for that would militate against its own objects.
It is easy to reason out from this principle what actions would be
condemned and what actions would be praised in the various stages of
human development. The strongest injunctions would correspond with the
fundamental requirements of existence, and would enjoin the sacredness
of life within the community. The family relationships would come next
in order of authority. The safeguards of property of every description
would early receive ethical recognition. Commendation would be accorded
to men whose actions were properly limited in these respects. In early
stages of development the coward would be condemned, while the warrior
who did his share well in the protection of the community would be
praised. And so in a variety of ways men's actions would receive praise
or blame, according as they conduced to the welfare or to the suffering
of the existing community.
FOOTNOTES:
[12] Data of Ethics, p. 133.
[13] Data of Ethics, p. 139.
[14] Ibid., p. 140.