IMI!Flats!
I'3-:=
4                       144  4
_1o
IT.4 ' ---ITT —'
o3a4v
I','4!7
17.fl      frozenn      es       s,-!-,
=_5
f 11  lit
free.,.
7:Z
-Allen,
















SOCIALISM.
BY
JOHN STUART MILL.


Reprinted from the Fortnightly Review.
CHICAGO:
BELFORDS, CLARKE & CO
MDCCCLXXIX.




UP I
ONOHUE        \
KENNEBERRY.




L * >, I5~->^ 'd,.!,  get "<*'*'
PRELIMINARY NOTICE.
T was in the year 1869 that, impressed
with the degree in which, even during the
last twenty years, when the world seemed so
wholly occupied with other matters, the socialist
ideas of speculative thinkers had spread among
the workers in every civilized country, Mr. Mill
formed the design of writing a book on Socialism. Convinced that the inevitable tendencies
of moder society must be to bring the questions
involved in it always more and more to the
front, he thought it of great practical consequence that they should be thoroughly and impartially considered, and the lines pointed out
by which the best speculatively-tested theories
might, without prolongation of suffering on the
one hand, or unnecessary disturbance on the other,
be applied to the existing order of things. He




10


SOCIALISM.


ten years of the Reform Act of 1832, few continued to think either that it would remove every
important practical grievance, or that it had
opened the door to universal suffrage.  But
five-and-twenty years more of its operation had
given scope for a large development of its
indirect working, which is much more momentous than the direct. Sudden effects in history
are generally superficial. Causes which go deep
down into the roots of future events produce the
most serious parts of their effect only slowly, and
have, therefore, time to become a part of the
familiar order of things before general attention
io called to the changes they are producing;
since, when the changes do become evident, they
are often not seen, by cursory observers, to be in
any peculiar manner connected with the cause.
The remoter conequences of a new political fact
are seldom understood when they occur, except
when they have been appreciated beforehand.
This timely appreciation is particularly easy
in Acspect to tendencies of the change made in
Uur institutions by tle Reform  Act of 1867.




SOCIALISM.


11


The great increase of electoral power which the
Act places within the reach of the working
classes is permanent. The circumstances which
have caused them, thus far, to make a very
limited use of that power, are essentially temporary. It is known even to the most inobservant,
that the working classes have, and are likely to
have, political objects which concern them as
working classes, and on which they believe,
rightly or wrongly, that the interests and opinions of the other powerful classes are opposed to
theirs. However much their pursuit of these
objects may be for the present retarded by want
of electoral organization, by dissensions among
themselves, or by their not having reduced as yet
their wishes into a sufficiently definite practical
shape, it is as certain as anything in politics can
be, that they will before long find the means of
making their collective electoral power effectively instrumental to the proportion of their
collective objects.  And when   they  do  so,
it will not be in the disorderly and ineffective way which belongs to a people not habitu



12


SOCIALISM.


ated to the use of legal and constitutional
machinery, nor will it be by the impulse of a
mere instinct of levelling. The instruments will
be the press, public meetings and associations,
and the return to Parliament of the greatest
possible number of persons pledged to the political aims of the working classes. The political
aims will themselves be determined by definite
political doctrines; for politics are now scientifically studied from the point of view of the
working classes, and opinions conceived in the
special interest of those classes are organized into
systems and creeds which lay claim to a place
on the platform  of political philosophy, by the
same right as the systems elaborated by previous
thinkers. It is of the utmost importance that
all reflecting persons should take into early consideration what these popular political creeds are
likely to be, and that every single article of them
should be brought under the fullest light of
investigation and discussion, so that, if possible
when the time shall be ripe, whatever is right in
them  may be adopted, and what is, wrong




SOCIALISM.


13


rejected by general consent, and that instead of
a hostile conflict, physical or only moral, between
the old and the new, the best parts of both may
be combined in a renovated social fabric. At the
ordinary pace of those great social changes
which are not effected by physical violence, we
have before us an interval of about a generation,
on the due employment of which it depends
whether the accommodation of social institutions
to the altered state of human society, shall be
the work of wise foresight, or of a conflict of
opposite prejudices. The future of mankind will
be gravely imperilled, if great questions are left
to be fought over between ignorant change and
ignorant opposition to change.
And the discussion that is now required is one
that must go down to the very first principles of
existing society. The fundamental doctrines
which were assumed as incontestable by former
generations, are now put again on their trial.
Until the present age, the institution of property
in the shape in which it has been handed down
from the past, had not, except by a few specula



14.


SOCIALISM.


tive writers, been brought seriously into question, because the conflicts of the past have
always been conflicts between classes, both of
which had a stake in the existing constitution of
property. It will not be possible to go on longer
in this manner.  When the discussion includes
classes who have next to no property of their
own, and are only interested in the institution so
far as it is a public benefit, they will not allow
anything to be taken for granted-certainly not
the principle of private property, the legitimacy
and utility of which are denied by many of th.
reasoners who look out from the stand-point
of the working    classes.  Those classes will
certainly demand that the subject, in al!
its parts, shall be reconsidered from the foun
dation; that all proposals for doing without
the institution, and all modes of modifying it
which have the appearance of being favorable to
the interest of the working classes, shall receive
the fullest consideration and discussion before it
is decided that the subject must remain as it is.
As far as this country is concerned, the disposi



SOCIALISM.


15


lions of the working classes have as yet manifested themselves hostile only to certain outlying
portions of the proprietary system.  Many of
them desire to withdraw questions of wages from
the freedom of contract, which is one of the
ordinary attributions of private property. The
more aspiring of them deny that land is a proper
subject for private appropriation, and have commenced an agitation for its resumption by the
State. With this is combined, in the speeches of
some of the agitators, a denunciation of what
they term usury, but without any definition of
what they mean by the name; and the cry does
not seem to be of home origin, but to have been
caught up from the intercourse which has
recently commenced through the Labor Congressses and the International Society, with the
continental Socialists who object to all interest
on money, and deny the legitimacy of deriving
an income in any form from property apart from
labor. This doctrine does not as yet show signs
of being widely prevalent in Great Britain, but
the soil is well prepared to receive the seeds of




SOCIALISM.


this description which are widely scattered from
those foreign countries where large, general
theories, and schemes of vast promise, instead of
inspiring distrust, are essential to the popularity
of a cause. It is in France, Germany, and
Switzerland that anti-property doctrines in the
widest sense have drawn large bodies of working
men to rally round them. In these countries
nearly all those who aim at reforming society in
the interest of the working classes profess themselves Socialists, a designation under which
schemes of very diverse character are comprehended and confounded, but which implies at
least a remodelling generally approaching to
abolition of the institution of private property.
And it would probably be found that even in
England the more prominent and active leaders
of the working classes are usually in their
private creed Socialists of one order or another,
though being, like most English politicians,
better aware than their Continental brethren
that great and permanent changes in the fundamental ideas of mankind are not to be accon



SOCIALISM.


17


plished by a coup de main, they direct their
practical efforts towards ends which seem within
easier reach, and are content to hold back all extreme theories until there has been experience of
the operation of the same principles on a partial
scale. While such continues to be the character
of the English working classes, as it is of Englishmen in general, they are not likely to rush headlong into the reckless extremities of some of the
foreign Socialists, who, even in sober Switzerland, proclaim themselves content to begin by
simple subversion, leaving the subsequent reconstruction to take care of itself; and by subversion, they mean not only the annihilation of all
government, but getting all property of all kinds
out of the hands of the possessors to be used for
the general benefit; but in what mode it will,
they say, be time enough afterwards to decide.
The avowal of this doctrine by a public newspaper, the organ of an association (La Solidarite
published at Neuchatel), is one of the most
curious signs of the times.  The leaders of the
English working-men —whose delegates at the
B




:18


SOCIALISM.


congresses of Geneva and Bale contributed much
the greatest part of such practical common sense
as was shown there-are not likely to begin
deliberately by anarchy, without having formed
any opinion as to what form of society should be
established in the room of the old. But it is
evident that whatever they do propose can only
be properly judged, and the grounds of the judgment made convincing to the general mind, on
the basis of a previous survey of the two rival
theories, that of private property and that of
Socialism, one or other of which must necessarily
furnish most of the premises in the discussion.
Before, therefore, we can usefully discuss this
class of questions in detail, it will be advisable
to examine from their foundations the general
question raised by Socialism. And this examination should be made without any hostile
prejudice. However irrefutable the arguments
in favor of the laws of property may appear to
those to whom they have the double prestige of
immemorial custom  and of personal interest,
nothing is more natural than that a workicng
O b




SOCIALISM.


19


man who has begun to speculate on politics,
should regard them in a very different light.
Having, after long struggles, attained in some
countries, and nearly attained in others, the point
at which for them, at least, there is no further
progress to make in the department of purely
political rights, is it possible that the less fortunate classes among the "adult males" should
not ask themselves whether progress ought to
stop there? Notwithstanding all that has been
done, and all that seems likely to be done, in the
extension of franchises, a few are born to great
riches, and the many to a penury, made only
more grating by contrast. No longer enslaved
or made dependent by force of law, the great
majority are so by force of poverty; they are still
chained to a place, to an occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and
debarred by the accident of birth both from the
enjoyments, and from the mental and moral
advantages, which others inherit without exertion
and independently of desert. That this is an
evil equal to almost any of those against which




20


SOCIALISM.


mankind have hitherto struggleJ, the popt a-:e
not wrong in believing. Is it a necessaiy exil?
They are told so by those who do not feel Itby those who have gained the prizes in the
lottery of life. But it was also said that slavery,
that despotism, that all the privileges of oligarchy were necessary. All the successive steps
that have been made by the poorer classes, partly
won from the better feelings of the powerfil,
partly extorted from  their fears, and partly
bought with money, or attained in exchange for
support given to one section of the powerful in
its quarrels with another, had the strongest prejudices opposed to them  beforehand; ltut tlheir
acquisition was a sign of power gained,y, thle
subordinate classes, a means to those classes of
acquiring more; it consequently drew to those
classes a certain share of the respect accorded to
power, and produced a corresponding modification in the creed of society respecting them;
whatever advantages they succeeded in acquiring came to be considered their due, while, of
those which they had not yet attained, they




SOCiIALISM.


21


continued to be di\emed unworthy. The classes,
therefore, which thi system  of society makes
subordinate, have little reason to put faith in
any of the maxims which the same system of
society may have established as principles. Considering that the opinions of mankind have been
found so wonderfully flexible, have always
tended to consecrate existing facts, and to declare what did not yet exist, either pernicious or
impracticable, what assurance have those classes
that the distinction of rich and poor is grounded
on a more imperative necessity than those other
ancient and long-established facts, which, having
been abolished, are now condemned even by
those who formerly profited by them?   This
cannot be taken on the word of an interested
party.  The working classes are entitled to
claim that the whole field of social institutions
should be re-examined, and every question considered as if it now arose for the first time;
with the idea constantly in view that the persons who are to be convinced are not those who
owe their ease and importance to the present




22


SOCIALISM.


system, but persons who have no other interest
in the matter than abstract justice and the general good of the community. It should be the
object to ascertain what institutions of propelity
would be established by an unprejudiced legislator, absolutely impartial between the possessors
of property and the non-possessors; and to defend and to justify them by the reasons which
would really influence such a legislator, and not
by such as have the appearance of being got Iup
to make out a case for what already exists. Such
rights or privileges of property as will not
stand this test will, sooner or later, have to
be given up. An impartial hearing ought, moreever, to be given to all objections against property itself. All evils and inconveniences attaching to the institution in its best form ought to
be frankly admitted, and the best remedies or
palliatives applied which human intelligence is
able to devise. And all plans proposed by social
reformers, under whatever name designated, for1
the purpose of attaining the benefits aimed at by
the institution of property without its inconveni



SOCIALISM.


23


ences, should be examined with the same candor,
not prejudged as absurd or impracticable.
SOCIALIST OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENT ORDER
OF SOCIETY.
As in all proposals for change there are two
elements to be considered-that which is to be
changed, and that which it is to be changed toso in Socialism considered generally, and in each
of its varieties taken separately, there are two
parts to be distinguished, the one negative and
critical, the other constructive. There is, first,
the judgment of Socialism on existing institutions and practices and on their results; and
secondly, the various plans which it has propounded for doing better. In the former all the
different schools of Socialism are at one. They
agree almost to identity in the faults which they
find with the economical order ot existing society. Up to a certain point also they entertain
the same general conception of the remedy to be
provided for those faults; but in the details, notwithstanding this general agreement, there is a




24


SOCIALISM.


wide disparity. It will be both natural and
convenient, in attempting an estimate of their
doctrines, to begin with the negative portion
which is common to them all, and to postpone all
mention of their differences until we arrive at
that second part of their undertaking, in which
alone they seriously differ.
This first part of our task is by no means difficult; since it consists only in an enumeration
of existing evils. Of these there is no scarcity,
and most of them are by no means obscure or
mysterious. Many of them are the veriest coimmonplaces of moralists, though the roots even,'
these lie deeper than moralists usually attemlpt
to penetrate.  So various are they that the only
difficulty is to make any approach to an exhaustive catalogue. We shall content ourselves
for the present with mentioning a few of tlh,
principal. And let one thing be remembered by
tie reader. When item after item of the enum-:- on passes before him, and he finds one fact
alter another which he has been accustomed tc
inclulde among the necessities of nature urgCen




SOCIALISM.


25


as an accusation against social institutions, he is
not entitled to cry unfairness, and to protest that
the evils complained of are inherent in Man and
Society, and are such as no arrangements can
remedy. To assert this would be to beg the very
question at issue. No one is more ready than
Socialists to admit-they affirm it indeed much
more decidedly than truth warrants-that the
evils they complain of are irremediable in the
present constitution of society. They propose to
consider whether some other form of society may
be devised which would not be liable to those
evils, or would be liable to them in a
much less degree.  Those who object to the
present order of society, considered as a whole
and who accept as an alternative the possibility
of a total change, have a right to set down all
the evils which at present exist in society as part
of their case, whether these are apparently attributable to social arrangements or not, provided
they do not flow from physical laws which human
power is not adequate, or human knowledge
has not yet learned, to counteract. Moral evils




26


SOCTALISM.


and such physical evils as would be remedied if
all persons did as they ought, are fairly chargeable against the state of society which aldmits of
them; and are valid as arguments until it is shown
that any other state of society would involve an
equal or greater amount of such evils. In the
opinion of Socialists, the present arrangements
of society in respect to Property and the Production and Distribution of Wealth, are as means to
the general good, a total failure.  They say that
there is an enormous mass of evil which these
arrangements do not succeed in preventing; that
the good, either moral or physical, which they
realize is wretchedly small compared with the
amount of exertion employed, and that even this
small amount of good is brought about by means
which are full of pernicious consequences, moral
and physical.
First among existing social evils may be mentioned the evil of Poverty. The institution of
Property is upheld and commended principally
as being the means by which labor and frugality
are insured their reward, and mankind enabled




SOCIALISM.


27


to emerge from indigence. It may be so; most
Socialists allow that it has been so in earlier
periods of history. But if the institution can do
nothing more or better in this respect than it has
hitherto done, its capabilities, they affirm, are
very  insignificant.  What proportion    of the
population, in the most civilized countries of
Europe, enjoy in their own persons anything
worth naming of the benefits of property? It
may be said, that but for property in the hands
of their employers they would be without daily
bread; but, though this be conceded, at least.
their daily bread is all that they have; and that
often in insufficient quantity; almost always of
inferior quality; and with no assurance of continuing to have it at all; an immense proportion
of the industrious classes being at some period or
other of their lives (and all being liable to become) dependent, at least temporarily, on legal
or voluntary charity. Any attempt to depict the
miseries of indigence, or to estimate the proportion of mankind who in the most advanced
countries are habitually given up during their




28


SOCIALISM.


whole existence to its physical and moral sufferings, would be superfluous here. This may be
left to philanthropists, who have painted these
miseries in colors sufficiently strong. Suffice it
to say that the condition of numbers in civilized
Europe, and even in England and France, is moi e
wretched than that of most tribes of savages who
are known to us.
It may be said that of this hard lot no one has
any reason to complain, because it befalls those:   v only who are outstripped 1Ob others, from infei-: ority of energy or of prudence. This, even were
it true, would be a very small alleviation of the
evil. If some Nero or Dominitian was to require a
hundred persons to run a race for their lives, on
condition that the fifty or twenty who came in
hindmost should be put to death, it would not be
any diminution of the injustice that the strongest
or nimblest would, except through some untoward accident, be certain to escape. The misery
and the crime would be that they were put to
death at all. So in the economy of society; if
there be any who suffer physical privation or




SOCIALISM.


29'


moral degralation, whose bodily necessities are
either not satisfied or satisfied in a manner
which only brutish creatures can be content with,
this, though not necessarily the crime of society,
is pro tanto a failure of the social arrangements
And to assert as a mitigation of t4l evil that
those who thus suffer are the weaker members of
the community, morally or physically, is to add
insult to misfortune. Is weakness a justification
of suffering? Is it not, on the contrary, an irresistible claim upon every human being for protection against suffering? If the minds and
feelings of the prosperous were in a right state,
would they accept their prosperity if for the
sake of it even one person near them was, for any
other cause than voluntary fault, excluded from
obtaining a desirable existence?
One thing there is, which if it could be
affirmed truly, would relieve social institutions
from  any share in the responsibility of these
evils. Since the human race has no means of
enjoyable existence, or of existence at all, but
what it derives from its own labor and abstill



SOCIALISM.


once, there would be no ground for complaint
against society if every one who was willing to
undergo a fair share of this labor and abstinence
cuuldl attain a fair share of the fruits. But is
this the fact? Is it not the reverse of the fact?
The reward, instead of being proportioned to the
labor and abstinence of the individual, is almost
in an inverse ratio to it: those who receive the
least, labor and abstain the most. Even the idle,
reckless, and ill-conducted poor, those who are
said with most justice to have themselves to
blame for their condition, often undergo much
more and severer labor, not only than those who
are born to pecuniary independence, but than
almost any of the more highly remunerated of
those who earn their subsistence; and even the inadequate self-control exercised by the industrious
poor costs them more sacrifice and more effort than
is almost ever required from the more favored
members of society. The very idea of distributive justice, or of any proportionality between
success and merit, or between success and exer
tion, is in the present state of society so mani



SOCIALISM.


31


festly chimerical as to be relegated to the regions
of romance. It is true that the lot of individuals
is not wholly independent of their virtue and
intelligence; these do really tell in their favor,
but far less than many other things in which
there is no merit at all. The most powerful of
all the determining circumstances is birth. The
great majority are what they were born to be.
Some are born rich without work, others are born
to a position in which they can become rich by
work, the great majority are born to hard work
and poverty throughout life, numbers to indigence. Next to birth the chief cause of success
in life is accident and opportunity. When a
person not born to riches succeeds in acquiring
them, his own industry and dexterity have generally contributed to the result; but industry
and dexterity would not have sufficed unless
there had been also a concurrence of occasions
and chances which falls to the lot of only a
small number. If persons are helped in their
worldly career by their virtues, so are they,
and perhaps quite as often, by their vices: by




SOCIALISM.


servility and sycophancy, by hard-hearted and
close-fisted selfishness, by the permitted lies and
tricks of trade, by gambling speculations, not
seldom  by downright knavery. Energies ani
talelnts are of much more avail for success in lift
than virtues; but if one man succeeds by employing energy and talent in something generally
useful, another thrives by exercising the same
qualities in out-generalling and ruining a rival
It is as much as any moralist ventures to assert,
that, other circumstances being given, honesty is
the best policy, and that with parity of advantages an honest person has a better chance than
a rogue. Even this in many stations and circumstances of life is questionable; anything more
than this is out of the question. It cannot be
pretended that honesty, as o means of success,
tells for as much as a difference of one single step
on the social ladder. The connection between
fortune and conduct is mainly this, that there is
a decgree of bad conduct, or rather of some kin is
of bad conduct, which suffices to ruin any amount
of good fortune; but the converse is not true: in




SOCIALISM.


33


the situation of most people no degree whatever
of good conduct can be counted upon for raising
them in the world, without the aid of fortunate
accidents.
These evils, then-great poverty, and that
poverty very little connected with desert-are
the first grand failure of the existing arrangements of society. The second is human misconduct; crime, vice, and folly, with all the sufferings
which follow in their train. For, nearly all the
forms of misconduct, whether committed towards
ourselves or towards others, may be traced to one
of three causes: Poverty and its temptations in
the many; Idleness and descezvrerment in the few
whose circumstances do not compel them to
work; bad education, or want of education, in
both. The first two must be allowed to be
at least failures in the social arrangements, the
last is now almost universally admitted to be
the fault of those arrangements-it may almost
be said the crime. I am speaking loosely and
in the rough, for a minuter analysis of the sources
of faults of character and errors of conduct
6




34


SOCIALISM.


would establish far more conclusively the filiation which   connects them   with  a defective
organization of society, though it would also
show the reciprocal dependence of that faulty
state of society on a backward state of the
human mind.
At this point, in the enumeration of the evils
of society, the mere levellers of former times
usually stopped; but their more far-sighted successors, the present Socialists, go farther.  In
their eyes the very foundation of human life as
at present constituted, the very principle on
which the production and repartition of all material products is now carried on, is essentially
vicious and anti-social. It is the principle of
individualism, competition, each one for himself
and against all the rest. It is grounded on opposition of interests, not harmony of interests,
and under it every one is required to find his
place by a struggle, by pushing others back or
being pushed back by them. Socialists consider
this system of private war (as it may be termed)
between every one and every one, especially




SOCIALISM.


35


fatal in an economical point of view and in a
moral. Morally considered, its evils are obvious.
It is the parent of envy, hatred, and all uncharitableness; it makes every one the natural enemy
of all others who cross his path, and every one's
path is constantly liable to be crossed. Under
the present system hardly any one can gain
except by the loss or disappointment of one or
of many others. In a well-constituted community every one would be a gainer by every other
person's successful exertions; while now we gain
by each other's loss and lose by each other's gain,
and our greatest gains come from the worst
source of all, from deatb, the death of those who
are nearest and should be dearest to us.  In its
purely economical operation the principle of individual competition receives as unqualified condemnation from the social reformers as in its
moral. In the competition of laborers they see
the cause of low wages; in the competition of
producers the cause of ruin and bankruptcy;
and both evils, they affirm, tend constantly to
increase as population and wealth make pro



36


SOCIALISM.


gress; no person (they conceive) being benefited
except the great proprietors of land, the holders
of fixed money incomes, and a few great capitalists, whose wealth is gradually enabling them
to undersell all other producers, to absorb trhe
whole of the operations of industry into their own
sphere, to drive from the market all employers
of labor except themselves, and to convert the
laborers into a kind of slaves or serfs, dependent
on them for the means of support, and comipelled
to accept these on such terms as they choose to
offer. Society, in short, is travelling onward,
according to these speculators, towards a new
feudality, that of the great capitalists.
As I shall have ample opportunity in future
chapters to state my own opinion on these topics,
and on many others connected with and subordinate to them, I shall now, without further preamble, exhibit the   opinions of distinguished
Socialists on the present arrangements of society,
in a selection of passages from their publislhe:
writings. For the present I desire to be consideretl as a mere reporter of the opinions ot'




SOCIALISM.


37


others. Hereafter it will appear how much of
what I cite agrees or differs with my own sentiments.
The clearest, the most compact, and the most
precise and specific statement of the case of the
Socialists generally against the existing order of
society in the economical department of human
affairs, is to be found in the little work of M.
Louis Blanc, Organisation du Travail. My first
extracts, therefore, on this part of the subject,
shall be taken from that treatise.
"Competition is for the people a system of
extermination.  Is the poor man a member of
society, or an enemy to it?   We ask for an
answer.
"All around him he finds the soil preoccupied.
Can he cultivate the earth for himself? No;
for the right of the first occupant has become a
right of property. Can he gather the fruits
which the hand of God ripens on the path of
man? No; for, like the soil, the fruits have
been appropriated. Can he hunt or fish? No;
for that is a right which is dependent upon the
government. Can he draw water from a spring
enclosed in a field? No; for the proprietor of
the field is, in virtue of his right to the field,




38


SOCIALISM.


proprietor of the fountain.  Can he, dying of
hunger and thirst, stretch out his hands for the
charity of his fellow-creatures? No; for there
are laws against begging. Can he, exhausted by
fatigue-and without a refuge, lie down to sleep
upon the pavement of the streets?  No; for
there are laws against vagabondage.  Can he,
flying from the cruel native land where everything is denied him, seek the means of living far
from the place where life was given him? No;
for it is not permitted to change your country
except on certain conditions which the poor man
cannot fulfil.
" What, then, can the unhappy man do? He
will say,' I have hands to work with, I have intelligence, I have youth, I have strength; take
all this, and in return give me a morsel of bread.
This is what the working-men do say. But even
here the poor man may be answered,' I have no
work to give you.' What is he to do then?"
"What is competition from the point of view
of the workman? It is work put up to auction.
A contractor wants a workman: three present
themselves.-How much for your work?-Halfa-crown; I have a wife and children.-Well; and
how much for yours?-Two shillings: I have no
children, but I have a wife.-Very well; and
now how much for you?-One and eightpence
are enough for me; I am single. Then you shall




SOCIALISM.


8t


have the work. It is done; the bargain is
struck. And what are the other two workmen to
do? It is to be hoped they will die quietly of hunger. But what if they take to thieving? Never
fear; we have the police. To murder? We have
got the hangman. As for the lucky one, his
triumph is only temporary. Let a fourth workman make his appearance, strong enough to fast
every other day, and his price will run down
still lower; then there will be a new outcast, a
new recruit for the prison perhaps!
" Will it be said that these melancholy results
are exaggerated; that at all events they are only
psssible when there is not work enough for the
hands that seek employment? But I ask, in
answer, Does the principle of competition contain, by chance, within itself any method by
which this murderous disproportion is to be
avoided? If one branch of industry is in want
of hands, who can answer for it that, in the confusion created by universal competition, another
is not overstocked? And if, out of thirty-four
millions of men, twenty are really reduced to
theft for a living, this would suffice to condemn
the principle.
" But who is so blind as not to see that under
the system of unlimited competition, the continual fall of wages is no exceptional circumstance,
but a necessary and general fact?  Has the
population a limit which it cannot exceed? Is




40


SOCIALISM,


it possible for us to say to industry-industi.
given up to the accidents of individual egotis;.u
and fertile in ruin-can we say, 'Thus far shalt
thou go, and no farther?' The population increases
constantly: tell the poor mother to become
sterile, and blaspheme the God who made her
fruitful, for if you do not, the lists will soon
become too narrow   for the combatants.   A
machine is invented: command it to be broken,
and anathematize science, for if you do not, the
thousand workmen whom the new machine deprives of work will knock at the door of the
neighboring workshop, and lower the wages of
their companions. Thus systematic lowering of
wages, ending in the driving out of a certain
number of workmen, is the inevitable effect of
unlimited competition.  It is an industrial system by means of which the working-classes are
forced to exterminate one another."
"If there is an undoubted fact, it is that the
increase of population is much more rapid among
the poor than among the rich. According to the
Statistics of European Population, the births at
Paris are only one-thirty-second of the popula
tion in the rich quarters, while in the others they
rise to one-twenty-sixth.  This disproportion is
a general fact, and M. de Sismondi, in his work
on Political Economy, has explained it by the
impossibility for the workmen of hopeful lArt



SOCIALISM.


41


dence. Those only who feel themselves assured
of the morrow can regulate the number
of their children according to their income;
he who lives from day to day is under
the yoke of a mysterious fatality, to which he
sacrifices his children as he was sacrificed to it
himself.  It is true the workhouses exist, menacing society with an inundation of beggarswhat way is there of escaping from the cause?... It is clear that any society where the
means of subsistence increase less rapidly than
the numbers of the population, is a society on the
brink of an abyss...            Competition
produces destitution; this is a fact shown by
statistics. Destitution is fearfully prolific; this
is shown by statistics. The fruitfulness of the
poor throws upon society unhappy creatures who
have need of work and cannot find it; this is
shown by statistics.  At this point society is
reduced to a choice between killing the poor or
maintaining them gratuitously-between atrocity
or folly."*
So much for the poor. We now pass to the
middle classes.
" According to the political economists of the
school of Adam Smith and Leon Say, cheapness
is the word in which may be summed up the
* See Louis Blanc, " Organisation du Travail," 4me edition,
pp. 6, 11, 53, 57.




42


SOCIALISM.


advantages of unlimited competition. But why
persist in considering the effect of cheapness with
a view only to the momentary advantage of the
consumer?  Cheapness is advantageous to the
consumer at the cost of introducing the seeds of
ruinous anarchy among the producers.  Cheapness is, so to speak, the hammer with which the
rich among the producers crush their poorer
rivals. Cheapness is the trap into which the
daring speculators entice the hard-workers.
Cheapness is the sentence of death to the producer on a small scale who has no money to
invest in the purchase of machinery that his rich
rivals can easily procure. Cheapness is the great
instrument in the hands of monoply; it absorbs
the small manufacturer, the small shopkeeper,
the small proprietor; it is, in one word, the destruction of the middle classes for the advantage
of a few industrial oligarchs.
Ought we, then, to consider cheapness as a
curse? No one would attempt to maintain such
an absurdity. But it is the specialty of wrong
principles to turn good into evil and to corrupt
all things. Under the system of competition
cheapness is only a provisional and fallacious
advantage. It is maintained only so long as
there is a struggle; no sooner have the rich competitors driven out their poorer rivals than
prices rise.  Competition leads to monopoly, for
the same reason cheapness leads to high prices.




SOCIALISM,


43


Thus, what has been made use of as a weapon in
the contest between the producers, sooner or
later becomes a cause of impoverishment among
the consumers. And if to this cause we add the
others we have already enumerated, first among
which must be ranked the inordinate increase of
the population, we shall be compelled to recognize the impoverishment of the mass of the consumers as a direct consequence of competition.
" But, on the other hand, this very competition
which tends to dry up the sources of demand,
urges production to over-supply. The confusion
produced by the universal struggle prevents each
producer from knowing the state of the market.
He must work in the dark, and trust to chance
for a sale. Why should he check the supply, especially as he can throw any loss on the workman whose wages are so pre-eminently liable to
rise and fall? Even when production is carried
on at a loss the manufacturers still often carry it
on, because they will not let their machinery,
&c., stand idle, or risk the loss of raw material,
or lose their customers; and because productive
industry as carried on under the competitive system being nothing else than a game of chance:
the gambler will not lose his chance of a lucky
stroke.
" Thus, and we cannot too often insist upon it,
competition necessarily tends to increase supply
and to diminish consumption; its tendency




44


SOCIALISM.


therefore is precisely the opposite of what is
sought by economic science; hence it is not
merely oppressive but foolish as well."
"And in all this, in order to avoid dwelling on
truths which have become commonplaces, and
sound declamatory from   their very truth, we
have said nothing of the frightful moral corruption which industry, organized, or more properly
speaking, disorganized, as it is at the present day,
has introduced among the middle classes. Everything has become venal, and competition invades
even the domain of thought.
"The factory   crushing the workslho p; tl-i
showy establishment absorbin o the humble sholl
the artisan who is his own master replaced by
the day-laborer; cultivation by the plow superseding that by the spade, and bringing the poor
man's field under disgraceful homage to the
money-lender; bankruptcies multiplied; mlanufacturing industry transformed by tlhe ill-lrcgulated extention of credit into a system  of gambling where no one, not even the roglle, can he
sure of winning; in short a vast confusion calculated to arouse jealousy, mistrust, and hiatred, and
to stifle, little by little, all generous aspirations,
all faith, self-sacrifice, and poetry-such is the
hideous but only too faithful picture of the




SOCIALISM.


45


results obtained by the application of the principle of competition."*
The Fourierists, through their principal organ,
MI. Considerant, enumerate the evils of the
existing civilisation in the following order:1. It employs an enormous quantity of labor
and of human power unproductively, or in the
work of destruction.
" In the first place there is the army, which in
France, as in all other countries, absorbs the
healthiest and strongest men, a large number of
the most talented and intelligent, and a considerable part of the public revenue.... The
existing state of society develops in its impure
atmosphere innumerable outcasts, whose labor is
not merely unproductive, but actually destructive: adventurers, prostitutes, people with no
acknowledged means of living, beggars, convicts,
swindlers, thieves, and others whose numbers
tend rather to increase than to diminish....
" To the list of unproductive labor fostered by
our state of Society must be added that of the
judicature and of the bar, of the courts of law and
magistrates, the police, jailers, executioners, &c.,
-functions indispensable to the state of society
as it is.
* See Louis Bla 'c, " Organisation du Travail," pp. 58-61,
65-66, 4me edition. Paris, 1845.




4'6


SOCIALISM.


" Also people of what is called ' good society';
those who pass their lives in doing nothing;
idlers of all ranks.
'Also the numberless custom-house officials, taxgatherers, bailiffs, excise-men; in short, all that
army of men which overlooks, brings to account,
takes, but produces nothing.
"Also the labors of sophists, philosophers,
metaphysicians, political men, working in mistaken directions, who do nothing to advance
science, and produce nothing but disturbance and
sterile discussions; the verbiage of advocates,
pleaders, witnesses, &c.
"And finally all the operations of commerce,
from those of the bankers and brokers, down to
those of the grocer behind his counter."*
Secondly, they assert that even the industry
and powers which in the present system are
devoted to production, do not produce more than
a small portion of what they might produce if
better employed and directed:" Who with any good-will and reflection will
not see how much the want of coherence-the
disorder, the want of combination, the parcelling
out of labor and leaving it wholly to individual
action without any organization, without any
* See Considerant, "Destinee Sociale," tome i. pp. 35, 36,
37, 3me ed. Paris, 1848.




SOCIALISM.


47


large or general views —are causes which limit
the possibilities of production, and destroy, or at
least waste, our means of action? Does not disorder give birth to poverty, as order and good
lmanagement give birth to riches? Is not want
(of combination a source of weakness, as combination is a source of strength? And who can say
that industry, whether agricultural, domestic,
manufacturing, scientific, artistic, or commercial,
is organized at the present day either in the state
or in municipalities? Who can say that all the
work which is carried on in any of these departments is executed in subordination to any general
views, or with foresight, economy, and order?
Or, again, who can say that it is possible in our
present state of society to develop, by a good
education, all the faculties bestowed by nature
on each of its members; to employ each one in
functions which he would like, which he would
be the most capable of, and which, therefore, he
could carry on with the greatest advantage to
himself and to others? Has it even been so
much as attempted to solve the problems presented by varieties of character so as to regulate and
harmonize the varieties of employments in
accordance with natural aptitudes? Alas! The
Utopia of the most ardent philanthropists is to
teach reading and writing to twenty-five millions
of the French people! And in the present state




48


SOCIALISIM.


of things we may defy them to succeed even in
that!
" And is it not a strange spectacle, too, and one
which cries out in condemnation of us, to see this
state of society where the soil is badly cultivated, and sometimes not cultivated at all; whenl.
man is ill lodged, ill clothed, and yet whe:',
whole masses are continually in need of work
and pining in misery because they cannot find t
Of a truth we are forced to acknowledge that i
the nations are poor and starving it is not lecause nature has denied the means of producin-,.
wealth, but because of the anarchy and disorl,1,
in our employment of those means; in otli](l
words, it is because society is wretchedly constik
tuted and labor unorganized.
" But this is not all, and you will have but a
faint conception of the evil if you do not consider that to all these vices of society, which dry
up the sources of wealth and prosperity, must 1b
added the struggle, the discord, the war, in short
under many names and many forms which society
cherishes and cultivates between the individuals
that compose it. These struggles and discords
correspond to radical oppositions-deep-seated
antinomies between the various interests. Exactly in so far as you are able to establish classes
and categories within the nation; in so far, also.
you will have opposition of interests and internal
warfare either avowed or secret, even if you




SOCIALISM.


49


take into consideration the industrial system
only."*
One of the leading ideas of this school is the
wastefulness and at the same time the immorality of the existing arrangements for distributing the   produce of the country among the
various consumers, the enormous superfluity in
point of number of the agents of distribution'
the merchants, dealers, shopkeepers and their
innumerable employes, and the depraving character of such a distribution of occupations.
" It is evident that the interest of the trader
is opposed to that of the consumer and of the
producer. Has he not bought cheap and undervalued as much as possible in all his dealings
with the producer, the very same article which
vaunting its excellence, he sells to you as dear as
he can?  Thus the interest of the commercial
body, collectively and individually, is contrary
to that of the producer and of the consumerthat is to say, to the interest of the whole body
of society.
"''he trader is a go-between, who profits by
the general anarchy and the non-organization of
* See "Destinee Sociale," par V. Considerant, tome i. pp.
38 —40.
0i




50


SOCIALISM.


industry. The, trader buys up products, he buys
up everything; he owns and detains everything
in such sort that:" Istly. He holds both Production and Consumption under his yoke, because both must
come to him either finally for the products to be
consumed, or at first for the raw materials to be
worked up. Commerce with all its methods of
buying, and of raising and lowering prices, its
innumerable devices, and its holding everything
in the hands of middle-nmen, levies toll right and
left; it despotically gives the law to Production
and Consumption, of which it ought to be only
the subordinate.
" 2ndly. It robs society by its enorvmous profits
-profits levied upon the consumer and the producer, and altogether out of proportion to the
services rendered, for which a twentieth of the
persons actually employed would be sufficient.
" rdly. It robs society by the subtraction of
its productive forces; taking off from productive
labor nineteen-twentieths of the agents of trade
who are mere parasites.  Thus, not only does
commerce rob society by appropriating an exorbitant share of the common wealth, but also by
considerably diminishing the productive energy
of the human beehive. The great majority of
traders would return to productive work if a
rational system of commercial organization were




SOCIALISM.


51


substituted for the inextricable chaos of the present state of things.
" 4thly. It robs society by the adulteration of
products, pushed at the present day beyond all
bounds. And in fact, if a hundred grocers establish themselves in a town where before there
were only twenty, it is plain that people will
not begin to consume five times as many groceries,
Hereupon the hundred virtuous grocers have to
dispute between them the profits which before
were honestly made by the twenty; competition
obliges them to make it up at the expense of the
consumer, either by raising the prices as sometimes happens, or by adulterating the goods as
always happens. In such a state of things there
is an end to good faith. Inferior or adulterated
goods are sold for articles of good quality whenever the credulous customer is not too experienced to be deceived. And when the customer
has been thoroughly imposed upon, the trading
conscience consoles itself by saying, 'I state my
price; people can take or leave; no one is obliged
to buy.' The losses imposed on the consumers
by the bad quality or the adulteration of goods
are incalculable.
" 5thly. It robs society by acctumulations, artificial or not, in consequence of which vast quantities of goods, collected in one place, are damaged
and destroyed for want of a sale. Fourier (Th.
des Quat. Mouv., p. 334, 1st ed.) says: 'The




52


SOCIALISM.


fundamental principle of the commercial systems,
that of leavinqg full li)berty to the merchants,
gives them absolute right of property over the
goods in which they deal; they have the right
to withdraw them   altogether, to withhold or
even to burn them, as happened more than once
with the Oriental Company of Amsterdam, whTlii -
publicly burnt stores of cinnamon in order to
raise the price. What it did with cinnamon it
would have done with corn; but for the fear of
being stoned by the populace, it would have
burnt some corn in order to sell the rest at four
times its value. Indeed, it actually is of daily
occurrence in ports, for provisions of grains to be
thrown into the sea because the merchants have
allowed them to rot while waiting for a rise. I
myself, when I was a clerk, have had to superintend these infamous proceedings, and in one day
caused to be thrown into the sea some forty
thousand bushels of rice, which might have been
sold at a fair profit had the withholder Leen less
greedy of gain. It is society that bears the cost
of this waste, which takes place daily under
shelter of the philosophical maxim of full liberty
for the merechants.'
" Gthly. Commerce robs society, moreover, by
all the loss, damage, and waste that follows fromn
the extreme scattering of products in millions of
shops, and by the multiplication and complication of carriage.




SOCTAITSIM.


53


"7thly. It robs society by shameless and unlimited usury-usury absolutely appalling. The
trader carries on operations with fictitious capital,
much higher in amount than his real capital. A
trader with a capital of twelve hundred pounds
will carry on operations, by means of bills and
credit, on a scale of four, eight, or twelve thousand
pounds. Thus he draws from capital which he
does not possess, usurious interest, out of all proportion with the capital he actually owns.
" 8thly. It robs society by innumerable banlkruptcies, for the daily accidents of our commercial system, political events, and any kind of
disturbance, must usher in a day when the trader,
having incurred obligations beyond his means,
is no longer able to meet them; his failure,
whether fraudulent or not, must be a severe blow
to his creditors. The bankruptcy of some entails
that of others, so that bankruptcies follow one
upon another, causing widespread ruin. And it
is always the producer and the consumer who
suffer; for commerce, considered as a whole,
does not produce wealth, and invests very little
in proportion to the wealth which passes through
its hands.  How many are the manufactures
crushed by these blows! how many fertile sources
of wealth dried up by these devices, with all
their disastrous consequences!
The producer furnishes the goods, the consulner the money.    Trade furnishes credit,




SOCIALISM.


founded on little or no actual capital, and the
different members of the commercial body are in
no way responsible for one another. This, in a
few words, is the whole theory of the thing.
"9thly. Commerce robs society by the indcpendence and ir7responsibility which permits it to
buy at the epochs when the producers are forced
to sell and compete with one another, in order to
procure money for their rent and necessary expenses of production.  When the markets are
overstocked and goods cheap, trade purchases.
Then it creates a rise, and by this simple
manceuvre despoils both producer and consumer.
" lOthly. It robs society by a considerable
drawinq off of capital, which will return to
productive industry when commerce plays its
proper subordinate part, and is only an agenJcy
carrying on transactions between the producers
(more or less distant) and the great centres of
consumption-the communistic societies.  Thus
the capital engaged in the speculations of commerce (which, small as it is, compared to the
immense wealth which passes through its hands,
consists nevertheless of sums enormous in themselves), would return to stimulate production if
cormmerce w-as deprived of the intermediate property in goods, and their distribution became a
matter of administrative organization.  Stockjobbing is the most odious form of this vice of
commerce.




SOCIALISM.


"llthly. It robs society by the monopolisimg
or buying up of raw materials.    'For' (says
Fourier, Th. des Quat. Mouv., p. 359, 1st ed.),
'the rise in price on articles that are bought up,
is borne ultimately by the consumer, although in
the first place by the manufacturers, who, being
obliged to keep up their establishments, must
make pecuniary sacrifices, and manufacture at
small profits in the hope of better days; and it
is often long before they can repay themselves
the rise in prices which the monopoliser has compelled them to support in the first instance..."
" In short, all these vices, besides many others
which I omit, are multiplied by the extreme
complication of mercantile affairs; for products
do not pass once only through the greedy clutches
of commerce; there are some which pass and
repass twenty or thirty times before reaching the
consumer. In the first place, the raw material
passes through the grasp of commerce before
reaching the manufacturer who first works it up;
then it returns to commerce to be sent out again
to be worked up in a second form; and so on
until it receives its final shape. Then it passes
into the hands of merchants, who sell to the
wholesale dealers, and these to the great retail
dealers of towns, and these again to the little
dealers and to the country shops; and each time
that it changes hands, it leaves something behind it.




56


SOCIALISTM.


".... One of my friends who was lately exploring the Jura, where much working in metal
is done, had occasion to enter the house of a
peasant who was a manufacturer of shovels. He
alked the price. ' Let us conme to an understanding,' answered the poor laborer, not an economist
at all, but a man of common sense; 'I sell them
for 8d. to the trade, which retails them at Is. 8(1.
in the towns.   If you could find a means of
opening a direct communication between     the
workman and the consumer, you might have
them for Is. 2d., and we should each gain 6d. iy
the transaction.'" *
To a similar effect Owen, in the Book of the
Newv Moral World, part 2, chap. iii.
" The principle now in practice is to induce a
large portion of society to devote their lives to
distribute wealth upon a large, a medium, and a
small scale, and to have it conveyed from place
to place in larger or smaller quantities, to meet
the means and wants of various divisions of
society and individuals, as they are now situated
in cities, towns, villages, and country places.
Th-is principle of distribution makes a class in
society whoqe business is to buy from    some
parties and to sell to others. By this proceedingthey are placed under circumstances which iii
" See Considemeani, "Destinee Sociale," tome i. pp. 4;-,.
3me. edition, Paris, 184S.




SOCIALTISM.


57


duce them to endeavor to buy at what appears
at the time a low price in the market, and to sell
again at the greatest permanent profit which
they can obtain. Their real object being to get
as much profit as gain between the seller to, and
the buyer from them, as can be effected in their
transactions.
" There are innumerable errors in principle and
evils in practice which necessarily proceed from
this mode of distributing the wealth of society.
" st. A general class of distributers is formed,
whose interest is separated from, and apparently
opposed to, that of the individual from whom
they buy and to whom they sell.
2' nd. Three classes of distributers are made,
the small, the medium, and the large buyers and
sellers; or the retailers, the wholesale dealers,
and the extensive merchants.
" 3rd. Three classes of buyers thus created
cunstitute the small, the medium, and the large
purchasers.
" By this arrangement into various classes of
buyers and sellers, the parties are easily trained
to learn that they have separate and opposing
interests, and different ranks and stations in
society. An inequality of feeling and condition
is thus created and maintained, with all the
servility and pride which these unequal arrangements are sure to produce.    The parties are
lregularly trained in a general system of deception,




58S


SOCIALISM.


in order that they may be the more successful in
buying cheap and selling dear.
"The smaller sellers acquire habits of injurious
idleness, waiting often for hours for customers.
And, this evil is experienced to a considerable
extent even amongst the class of wholesale
dealers.
" There are, also, by this arrangement, many
more establishments for selling than are necessary in the villages, towns, and cities; and a very
large capital is thus wasted without benefit to
society. And from their number opposed to each
other all over the country to obtain customers,
they endeavor to undersell each other, and are
therefore continually endeavoring to injure the
producer by the establishment of what are called
cheap shops and warehouses; and t) support
their character the master or his servants must
be continually on the watch to buy bargains, that
is, to procure wealth for less than the cost of its
production.
"The distributers, small, medium, and large,
have all to be supported by the producers, and
the glrater the number of the former compared
with the latter, the greater will be the burden
which the producer has to sustain; for as the
number of distributers increases, the accumulation
of wealth must decrease, and more must be re-:i'C,'ud from the producer.
Thie distributers of wealth, under the present




SOCIALISM.


system, are a dead weight upon the producers,
and are most active demoralisers of society. Their
dependent condition, at the commencement of
their task, teaches or induces them to be servile
to their customers, and to continue to be so as
long as they are accumulating wealth by their
cheap buying and dear selling. But when they
have secured sufficient to be what they imagine
to be an independence-to live without business
-they are too often filled with a most ignorant
pride, and become insolent to their dependents.
"The arrangement is altogether a most improvident one for society, whose interest it is to
produce the greatest amount of wealth of the
best qualities; while the existing system of distribution is not only to withdraw great numbers
from producing to become distributers, but to add
to the cost of the consumer all the expense of a
most wasteful and extravagant distribution; the
distribution costing to the consumer many times
the price of the original cost of the wealth purchased.
' Then, by the position in which the seller is
placed by his created desire for gain on the one
hand, and the competition he meets with from
opponents selling similar productions on the
other, he is strongly tempted to deteriorate the
articles which he has for sale; and when these
are provisions, either of home production or
of foreign importation, the effects upon the health,




60


SOCIALISM.


and consequent comfort and happiness of the
consumers, are often mnost injurious, and productive of much premature death, especially armong
the working classes, who, in this respect, are
perhaps made to be the greatest sufferers, by
purcha.sing the inferior or low-priced articles.
"The expense of thus distributing wealth in
Great Britain and Ireland, including tt'ansit from
place to place, and all the agents directly and
indirectly engaged in this department, is, perhaps, little short of one hundred millions annually,
without taking into consideration the deterioration of the quality of many of the articles constituting this wealth, by carriage, and by being
divided into small quantities, and kept inl itmproper stares and places, in -Nwhich t-he atmlosphere
is unfavorable to the keeping of sulch articles in
a tolerably good, and much less in the best, condition for use."
In further illustration of the contrariety of
interests between person and Ielrsoli, class anld
c!asN, wiIich pervadles the present constitution of
society,,I. Considdl'ant adds:"If the wine-growers wis;h for free tradle, this
freedom ruins the producer of corn, the nlannlfacturers of iron, of cloth, of cotton, and —we aire
compelled to add —the smuggler and the customns'




SOCIALISM.


6I


officer. If it is the interest of the consumer that
machines should -e invented which lower prices
by rendering production less costly, these same
machines throw out of work thousands of workmen who do not know how to, and cannot at
once, find other work. Here, then, again is one
of the innumerable vicious circles of civilisation..... for there are a thousand facts
which prove cumulatively that in our existing
social system the introduction of any good brings
always along with it some evil.
" In short, if we go lower down and come to
vulgar details, we find that it is the interest of
the tailor, the shoemaker, and the hatter that
coats, shoes, and hats should be soon worn out;
that the glazier profits by the hail-storms which
break windows; that the mason and the architect profit by fires; the lawyer is enriched by
law-suits; the doctor by disease; the wine-seller
by drunkenness; the prostitute by debauchery.
And what a disaster it would be for the judges,
the police, and the jailers, as well as for the
barristers and the solicitors, and all the lawyers'
clerks, if crimes, offences, and law-suits were all
at once to come to an end!"*
The following is one of the cardinal points of
this school:
"Add to all this, that civilisation, which sows
* Considerant, "Destinee Sociale," tome i., pp. 59, 60.




62


SOCIALISM.


dissension and war on     every  side; which
employs a great part of its powers in unproductive labor or even in destruction; which furtheriiore diminishes the public wealth by the unneccssary friction and discord it introduces into
it-dustry; add to all this, I say, that this same
social system has for its special characteristic to
produce a repugnance for work-a disgust for
labor.
" Everywhere you hear the laborer, the artisan,
the clerk complain of his position and his occupation, while they long for the time when they
can retire from work imposed upon them    by
necessity.  To be repugnant, to have for its
motive and pivot nothing but the fear of starvation, is the great, the fatal, characteristic of
civilised labor. The civilised workman is condeinned to penal servitude. So long as productive labor is so organized that instead of being
associated with pleasure it is associate! with
pain, weariness and dislike, it will always happen
that all will avoid it who are able. With few
exceptions, those only will consent to work who
are compelled to it by want. Hence the most
numerous classes, the artificers of social wealth,
the active and direct creators of all comfort and
luxury, will always be condemned to touch
closely on poverty and hunger; they will always
be the slaves to ignorance and degradation; they
will continue to be always that huge herd of




SOCIALISM.


llmre beasts of burden whom we see ill-grown,
decimated by disease, bowed down in the great
workshop of society over the plow or over the
counter, that they may prepare the delicate
food, and the sumptuous enjoyments of the
upper and idle classes.
"So long as no method of attractive labor has
been devised, it will continue to be true that
' there must be many poor in order that there
may be a few rich;' a mean and hateful saying,
which we hear every day quoted as an eternal
truth from the mouths of people who call themselves Christians or philosophers. It is very
easy to understand that oppression, trickery,
and especially poverty, are the permanent and
fatal appanage of every state of society characterized by the dislike of work, for, in this case,
there is nothing but poverty that will force men
to labor. And the proof of this is, that if every
one of all the workers were to become suddenly
rich, nineteen-twentieths of all the work now
done would be abandoned." *
In the opinion of the Fourierists, the tendency
of the present order of society is to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a comparatively
few immensely rich individuals or companies,
and the reduction of all the rest of the commun

* Considerant, " Destinee Sociale," tome i., pp. 60, 61.




CG


SOCIALISM.


i'- into a complete dependence on them. This
was terned by Fourier lajeodalite industrielle
"'1 his feudalism," says M. Considerant, " would
be constituted as soon as the largest part of the
industrial and territorial property cf the nation
belongs to a minority which absorbs all its
revenues, while the great majority, chained to the,work-bench or laboring on the soil, must be content to gnaw   the pittance which is cast to
them. "rn
This disastrous result is to be brought about
partly by the mere progress of competition, as
sketched in our previous extract by M. Louis
Blanc; assisted by the progress of national debts,
which M. Considerant regards as mortgages of the
whole land and capital of the country, of which
" les capitalistes preteurs" become, in a greater
and greater measure, co-proprietors, receiving
without labor or risk an increasing portion of the
revenues.
* Considerant " Destinee Sociale," tome i., p. 134.




SOCIALISM.


C6


THE SOCIALIST OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENT''
ORDER OF SOCIETY EXAMINED.
IT is impossible to deny that the considerations
brought to notice in the preceding chapter make
out a frightful case either against the existing
order of society, or against the position of man
himself in this world. How much of the evils
should be referred to the one, and how much to
the other, is the principal theoretic question
which has to be resolved. But the strongest
case is susceptible of exaggeration; and it will
have been evident to many readers, even from
the passages I have quoted, that such exaggeration is not wanting in the representations of the
ablest and most candid Socialists. Though much
of their allegations is unanswerable, not a little
is the result of errors in political economy; by
which, let me say once for all, I do not mean the
rejection of any practical rules of policy which
have been laid down by political economists, I mean ignorance of economic facts,
and of the causes by which the economic
E




66


SOCIALISM.


phenomena of society as it is, are actually determined.
In the first place it is unhappily true that the
wages of ordinary labor, in all the countries of
Europe, are wretchedly insufficient to supply the
physical and moral necessities of the population
in any tolerable measure. But, when it is
further alleged that even this insufficient remu -
eration has a tendency to diminish; that there
is, in the words of M. Louis Blanc, utne. oais.e
contitnue des salaires; the assertion is in opposition to all accurate information, and to many
notorious facts. It has yet to be proved that
there is any country in the civilized world where
the ordinary wages of labor, estimated either in
money or in articles of consumption, are declining; while in many they are, on the whole, on
the increase; and an increase which is becoming,
not slower, but more rapid. There are, occasionally, branches of industry which are being gradually superseded by something else, and, in those,
until production accommodates itself to demand,
wages are depressed; which is an evil, but a




SOCIALISM.


67


temporary one, and would admit of great alleviation even in the present system of social economy.
A diminution thus produced of the reward of
labor in some particular employment is the effect
and the evidence of increased remuneration, or
of a new source of remuneration, in some other.
the total and the average remuneration being
undiminished, or even increased. To make out
an appearance of diminution in the rate of wages
in any leading branch of industry, it is always
found necessary to compare some month or year
of special and temporary depression at the present
time, with the average rate, or even some exceptionally high rate, at an earlier time. The vicissitudes are no doubt a great evil, but they were as
frequent and as severe in former periods of
economical history as now. The greater scale of
the transactions, and the greater number of persons involved in each fluctuation, may make the
fluctuation appear greater, but though a larger
population affords more sufferers, the evil does
not weigh heavier on each of them individually
There is much evidence of improvement, and




68


SOCIALISM.


none, that is at all trustworthy, of deterioration,
in the mode of living of the laboring populationl
of the countries of Europe; when there is any
appearance to the contrary it is local or partial,
and can always be traced either to the pressure
of some temporary     calamity, or to   some
bad law or unwise act of government which
admits  of being corrected, while the    permanent causes all operate in the direction of
improvement.
I. Louis Blanc, therefore, while showing himself much more enlightened than the older school
of levellers and democrats, inasmuch as he recognizes the connection between low wages and the
over-rapid increase of population, appears to
have fallen into the same error which was at
first committed by Malthus and his followers,
that of supposing that because population has a
greater power of increase than subsistence, its
pressure upon subsistence must be always growing more severe. The difference is that the early
Malthusians thought this an irrepressible tendency. while M. Louis Blanc thinks that it can




SOCIALISM.


69


be repressed, but only under a system of Communism.   It is a great point gained for truth
when it comes to be seen that the tendency to
over-population is a fact which Communism, as
well as the existing order of society, would have
to deal with. And it is much to be rejoiced at
that this necessity is admitted by the most considerable chiefs of all existing schools of Socialism. Owen and Fourier, no less than M. Louis
Blanc, admitted it, and claimed for their respective systems a pre-eminent power of dealing
with this difficulty. However this may be, experience shows that in the existing state of
society the pressure of population on subsistence,
which is the principal cause of low wages, though
a great, is not an increasing evil; on the contrary, the progress of all that is called civilization has a tendency to diminish it, partly by the
more rapid increase of the means of employing
and maintaining labor, partly by the increased
facilities opened to labor for transporting itself
to new countries and unoccupied fields of employment, and partly by a general improvement




70


SOCIALISM.


in the intelligence and prudence of the population. This progress, no doubt, is slow; but it is
much that such progress should take place at all,
while we are still only in the first stage of that
public movement for the education of the whole
people, which when more advanced must add
greatly to the force of all the two causes of improvement specified above. It is, of course, open
to discussion what form of society has the greatest power of dealing successfully with the pressure of population on subsistence, and on this
question there is much to be said for Socialism
what was long thought to be its weakest point
will, perhaps, prove to be one of its strongest.
But it has no just claim to be considered as the
sole means of preventing the general and growing degradation of the mass of mankind through
the peculiar tendency of poverty to produce overpopulation. Society as at present constituted is
not descending into that abyss, but gradually,
though slowly, rising out of it, and this improvement is likely to be progressive if bad laws do
not interfere with it.




SOCIALISM.


71


Next, it must be observed that Socialists generally, and even the most enlightened of them,
have a very imperfect and one-sided notion of
the operation of competition. They see half its
effects, and overlook the other half; they regard
it as an agency for grinding down every one's
remuneration-for obliging every one to accept
less wages for his labor, or a less price for his
commodities, which would be true only if every
one had to dispose of his labor or his commodities to some great monopolist, and the competition were all on one side. They forget that
competition is a cause of high prices and values
as well as of low; that the buyers of labor and
of commodities compete with one another as well
as the sellers; and that if it is competition which
keeps the prices of labor and commodities as low
as they are, i, is competition which prevents
them from falling still lower. In truth, when
competition is perfectly free on both sides, its
tendency is not specially either to raise or to
lower the price of articles, but to equalize it; to
level inequalities of remuneration, and to reduce




72


SOCIALISM.


all to a general average, a result which, in so far
as realized (no doubt very imperfectly), is, on
Socialistic principles, desirable. But if, disregarding for the time that part of the effects of
competition which consists in keeping up prices,
we fix our attention on its effect in keeping them
down, and contemplate this effect in reference
solely to the interest of the laboring classes, it
would seem that if competition keeps dow n wages,
and so gives a motive to the laboring classes to
withdraw the labor market from the full influence of competition, if they can, it must on the
other hand have cre.dit for keeping down the
prices of the articles on which wages are expended, to the great advantage of those who depend
on wages. To meet this consideration Socialists,
a<s we said in our quotation from M. Louis Blanc,
are reduced to aftirm that the low prices of commodities produced by competition are delusive
and lead in the end to higher prices than before,
because when the richest competitor has got rid
(i all his rivals, he commands the market and
2an demand any price he pleases. Now, the




SOCIALISM.


73


commonest experience shows that this state of
things, under really free competition, is wholly
imaginary. The richest competitor neither does
nor can get rid of all his rivals, and establish
himself in exclusive possession of the market;
and it is not the fact that any important branch
of industry or commerce formerly divided among
many has become, or shows any tendency to become, the monopoly of a few.
The kind of policy described is sometimes possible where, as in the case of railways, the only
competition possible is between two or three
great companies, the operations being on too vast
a scale to be within the reach of individual capitalists; and this is one of the reasons why businesses which require to be carried on by great
joint-stock enterprises cannot be trusted to competition, but, when not reserved by the State to
itself, ought to be carried on under conditions
prescribed, and, from time to time, varied by the
State, for the purpose of insuring to the public a
cheaper supply of its wants than would be afforded by private interest in the absence of sufficient




74


SOCIALISM.


competition. But in the ordinary branches of
industry no one rich competitor has it in his
power to (irive out all the smaller ones.  Some
lbusilesses show a tendlency to pass out of the
hands of many small producers or dealers into a
smaller number of larger ones; but the cases in
which this happens are those in which the possession of a larger capital permits the adoption
of more powerful machinery, more efficient by
more expensive processes, or a better organized
and more economical mode of carrying on business, and thus enables the large dealer legitimately and permanently to supply the commodity
cheaper than can be done on the small scale; to
the great advantage of the consumers, and therefore of the laboring classes, and diminishing, pro
t(nto, that waste of the resources of the community so much complained of by Socialists, the
unnecessary multiplication of mere distribultors,.1.J of the various other classes whom Fourier
calls the parasites of industry. When this change
is elfected, the larger capitalists, either individual
o)r joint stock, among which  the business is




SOCIALISM.


divided, are seldom, if ever, in any considerable
branch of commerce, so few as that competition
shall not continue to act between them; so that
th' saving in cost, which enabled them to undersell1 the small dealers, continues afterwards; as at
first, to be passed on, in lower prices, to their
customers. The operation, therefore, of competition in keeping down the prices of commodities,
including those on which wages are expended,
is not illusive but real, and, we may add, is a
growing, not a declining, fact.
But there are other respects, equally important,
in which the charges brought by Socialists
against competition do not admit of so complete
an answer. Competition is the best security for
cheapness, but by no means a security for quality.
In former times, when producers and consumers
were less numerous, it was a security for both.
The market was not large enough nor the means
of publicity sufficient to enable a dealer to make
a fortune by continually attracting new customers: his success depended on his retaining
those that he had; and when a dealer furnished




76


SOCIALISM.


good articles, or when he did not, the fact was soon
known to those whom it concerned, and he acquired a character for honest or dishonest dealing of
more importance to him than the gain that would
be made by cheating casual purchasers. But on
the great scale of modern transactions, with the
great multiplication of competition and the
immense increase in the quantity of business
competed for, dealers are so little dependent on
permanent customers that character is much less
essential to them, while there is also far less
certainty of their obtaining the character they
deserve.  The low prices which a tradesman
advertises are known, to a thousand for one who
has discovered for himself or learned from others,
that the bad quality of the goods is more than
an equivalent for their cheapness; while at the
same time the much greater fortunes now made
by some dealers excite the cupidity of all, and
the greed of rapid gain substitutes itself for
the modest desire to make a living by their
business. In this manner, as wealth increases
and greater prizes seem to be within reach, more




SOCIALISM.


77


and more of a gambling spirit is introduced into
commerce; and where this prevails not only are
the simplest maxims of prudence disregarded,
but all, even the most perilous, forms of pecuniary
improbity receive a terrible stimulus. This is
the meaning of what is called the intensity of
modern competition. It is further to be mentioned that when this intensity has reached a
certain height,and when a portion of the producers
o! an article or the dealers in it have resorted to
any of the modes of fraud, such as adulteration,
giving short measure, &c., of the increase of which
there is now so much complaint, the temptation
is immense on these to adopt the fraudulent
practises, who would not have originated them;
for the public are aware of the low prices fallaciously produced by the frauds, but do not finde
out at first, if ever, that the article is not worth
the lower price, and they will not go on paying
a higher price for a better article, and the honest
dealer is placed at a terrible disadvantage. Thus
the frauds, begun by a few, become customs of




78


SOCIALISA.


the trade, and the morality of the trading classes
is more and more deteriorated.
On this point, therefore, Socialists have really
made out the existence not only of a great evil,
but of one which grows and tends to grow with
the growth of population and wealth. It must
be said, however, that society has never yet used
the means which are already in its power of
grappling with this evil. The laws against commercial frauds are very defective, and their execution still more so. Laws of this description have
no chance of being really enforced unless it is
the special duty of some one to enforce them.
They are specially in need of a public prosecutor.
It is still to be discovered how far it is possible
to repress by means of the criminal law a class of
misdeeds which are now seldom brought before
the tribunals, and to which, when brought, the
judicial administration of this country is most
unduly lenient. The most important class, however, of these frauds, to the mass of the people,
those which affect the price or quality of articles
of daily consumption, can be in a great measure




SOCIALISTM.


79


overcome by the institution of co-operative stores.
By this plan any body of consumers who form
themselves into an association for the purpose,
are enabled to pass over the retail dealers and
obtain their articles direct from the wholesale
merchants, or, what is better (now that wholesale co-operative agencies have been established),
from the producers, thus freeing themselves from
the heavy tax now paid to the distributing classes
and at the same time eliminate the usual perpetrators of adulterations and other frauds. Distribution thus becomes a work performed by
agents selected and paid by those who have no
interest in anything but the cheapness and goodness of the article; and the distributors are
capable of being thus reduced to the numbers
which the quantity of work to be done really
requires. The difficulties of the plan consist in
the skill and trustworthiness required in the
managers, and the imperfect nature of the control
which can be exercised over them by the body
at large. The great success and rapid growth of
the system prove, however, that these difficulties




80


SOCIALISM.


are, in some tolerable degree, overcome. At all
events, if the beneficial tendency of the competition of retailers in promoting cheapness is foregone, and has to be replaced by other securities,
the mischievous tendency of the same competition in deteriorating quality is at any rate got
rid of; and the prosperity of the co-operative
stores shows that this benefit is obtained not
only without detriment to cheapness, but with
great advantage to it, since the profits of the
concerns enable them to return to the consumers
a large percentage on the price of every article
supplied to them. So far, therefore, as this class
of evils is concerned, an effectual remedy is
already in operation, which, though suggested by
and partly grounded on socialistic principles, is
consistent with the existing constitution of
property.
With regard to those greater and more conspicuous economical frauds, or malpractices
equivalent to frauds, of which so many deplorable cases have become notorious-committed
by merchants and bankers between them



SOCIALISM.


81


selves or between them and those who have
trusted them with money, such a remedy
as above described is not available, and the
only resources which the present constitution
of society affords against them are a sterner
reprobation by opinion, and a more efficient
repression by the law. Neither of these remedies has had any approach to an effectual trial.
It is on the occurrence of insolvencies that these
dishonest practices usually come to light; the
perpetrators take their place, not in the class of
malefactors, but in that of insolvent debtors;
and the laws of this and other countries were
formerly so savage against simple insolvency,
that by one of those reactions to which the
opinions of mankind are liable, insolvents came
to be regarded mainly as objects of compassion,
and it seemed to be thought that the hand both
of law and of public opinion could hardly press
too lightly upon them. By an error in a contrary
direction to the ordinary one of our law, which
in the punishment of offences in general wholly
neglects the question of reparation to the sufferer,
Ff




82


SOCIALISM.


our bankruptcy laws have for some time treated
the recovery for creditors of what is left of their
property as almost the sole object, scarcely any
importance being attached to the punishment of
the bankrupt for any misconduct which does not
directly interfere with that primary purpose.
For three or four years past there has been a
slight counter-reaction, and more than one bankruptcy act has been passed, somewhat less indulgent to the bankrupt; but the primary object
regarded has still been the pecuniary interest of
the creditors, and criminality in the bankrupt
himself, with the exception of a small number
of well-marked offences, gets off almost with
impunity. It may be confidently affirmed, therefore, that, at least in this country, society has
not exerted the power it possesses of making
mercantile dishonesty dangerous to the perpetrator. On the contrary, it is a gambling trick in
which all the advantage is on the side of the
trickster: if the trick succeeds it makes his
fortune, or preserves it; if it fails, he is at
most reduced to poverty, which was perhaps




SOCIALIS3M.


S3


already impending when he determined to run
the chance, and he is classed by those who have
not looked closely into the matter, and even by
many who have, not among the infamous but
among the unfortunate. Until a more moral
and rational mode of dealing with culpable insolvency has been tried and failed, commercial
dishonesty cannot be ranked among evils the
prevalence of which is inseparable from commercial competition.
Another point on which there is much misapprehension on the part of Socialists, as well as
of Trades Unionists and other partisans of Labor
against Capital, relates to the proportions in
whica the produce of the country is really
shared and the amount of what is actually
diverted from those who produce it, to enrich
other persons. I forbear for the present to speak
of the land, which is a subject apart. But with
respect to capital employed in business, there is
in the popular notiis a great deal of illusion.
When, for instance, a capitalist invests ~20,000
in his business, and draws from it an income of




84


SOCIALISM.


(suppose) ~2,000 a year, the common impression
is as if he was the beneficial owner both of tlie
~20,000 and of the ~2,000, while the laborers
own nothing but their wages. The truth, however, is, that he only obtains the ~2,000 on conditon of applying no part of the ~20,000 to his own
use. He has the legal control over it, and might
squander it if he chose, but if he did he would
not have the ~2,000 a year also. As long as lie
derives an income from his capital he has not the
option of withholding it from the use of others.
As much of his invested capital as consists of
buildings, machinery, and other instruments of
production, are applied to production and are not
applicable to the support or enjoyment of any
one. What is so applicable (including what is
laid out in keeping up or renewing the buildings
and instruments) is paid away to laborers, forming their remuneration and their share in the
division of the produce. For all personal purposes they have the capital and he has but the
profits, which it only yields to him on condition
that the capital itself is employed in satisfying




SOCIALISM.


85


not his own wants, but those of laborers. The
proportion which the profits of capital usually
bear to capital itself (or rather to the circulating
portion of it) is the ratio which the capitalist's
share of the produce bears to the aggregate share
of the laborers. Even of his own share a small
part only belongs to him as the owner of capital.
The portion of the produce which falls to capital merely as capital is measured by the interest
of money, since that is all that the owner of
capital obtains when he contributes nothing to
production except the capital itself. Now the
interest of capital in the public funds, which are
considered to be the best security, is at the present prices (which have not varied much for
many years) about three and one-third per cent.
Even in this investment there is some little risk
-risk of repudiation, risk of being obliged to
sell out at a low price in some commercial crisis.
Estimating these risks at i per cent., the remaining 3 per cent. may be considered as the
remuneration of capital, apart from insurance
against loss.  On the security of a mortgage




86


SOCIALISM.


4 per cent. is generally obtained, but in this
transaction there are considerably greater risks
-the uncertainty of titles to land under our bad
system of law; the chance of having to realize
the security at a great cost in law charges; and
liability to delay in the receipt of the interest
even when the principal is safe. When mere
money independently of exertion yields a larger
income, as it sometimes does, for example, by
shares in railway or other companies, the surplus
is hardly ever an equivalent for the risk of losing
the whole, or part, of the capital by mismanagement, as in the case of the Brighton Railway, the
dividend of which, after having been 6 per cent.
per annum, sunk to from nothing to 1 per cent.,
and shares which had been bought at 120 could
not be sold for more than about 43. When
money is lent at the high rates of interest one
occassionally hears of, rates only given by spendthrifts and needy persons, it is because the risk
of loss is so great that few who possess money
can be induced to lend to them at all. So little
reason is there for the outcry against "usury"




SOCIALISM.


87


as one of the grievous burthens of the workingclasses. Of the profits, therefore, which a manufacturer or other person in business obtains from
his capital no more than about 3 per cent. can be
set down to the capital itself. If he were able
and willing to give up the whole of this to his
laborers, who already share among them the
whole of his capital as it is annually reproduced
from year to year, the addition to their weekly
wages would be inconsiderable. Of what he
obtains beyond 3 per cent. a great part is insurance against the manifold losses he is exposed to,
and cannot safely be applied to his own use, but
requires to be kept in reserve to cover those
losses when they occur. The remainder is properly the remuneration of his skill and industry
-the wages of his labor of superintendence. No
doubt if he is very successful in business these
wages of his are extremely liberal, and quite out
of proportion to what the same skill and industry would command if offered for hire. But, on
the other hand, he runs a worse risk than that of
being out of employment; that of doing the




88


SOCIALISM.


work without earning anything by it, of having
the labor and anxiety without the wages. I do
not say that the drawbacks balance the privileges, or that he derives no advantage from the
position which makes him a capitalist and employer of labor, instead of a skilled superintendent letting out his services to others; but the
amount of his advantage must not be estimated
by the great prizes alone. If we subtract from
the gains of some the losses of others, and
deduct from the balance a fair compensation for
the anxiety, skill, and labor of both, grounded on
the market price of skilled superintendence, what
remains will be, no doubt, considerable, but yet,
when compared to the entire capital of
the country, annually reproduced and dispensed in wages, it is very much smaller than it
appears to the popular imagination; and were
the whole of it added to the share of the laborers it would make a less addition to that share
than would be made by any important invention
in machinery, or by the suppression of unnecessary distributors and other " parasites of indus



SOCIALISM.


89


try." To complete the estimate, however, of the
portion of the produce of industry which goes to
remunerate capital we must not stop at the
interest earned out of the produce by the
capital actually employed in producing it, but
must include that which is paid to the former
owners of capital which has been unproductively spent and no longer exists, and is
paid, of course, out of the produce of other
capital. Of this nature is the interest of national
debts, which is the cost a nation is burthened
with for past difficulties and dangers, or for past
folly or profligacy of its rulers, more or less
shared by the nation itself. To this must be
added the interest on the debts of landowners
and other unproductive consumers; except so far
as the money borrowed may have been spent in
remunerative improvement of the productive
powers of the land. As for landed property itself-the appropriation of the rent of land by
private individuals-I reserve, as I have said,
this question for discussion hereafter; for the
tenure of land might be varied in any manner




90


SOCIALISM.


considered desirable, all the land might be declared the property of the State, without interfering with the right of property in anythii,;
which is the product of human labor and
abstinence.
It seemed desirable to begin the discussicn
of the Socialist question  by  these remarks
in abatement of Socialist exaggerations, in order
that the true issues between Socialism and the
existing state of society might be correctly conceived. The present system is not, as many
Socialists believe, hurrying us into a state,;f
general indigence and slavery from which only
Socialism can save us. The evils and injustices
suffered under the present system are great, but
they are not increasing; on the contrary, tlhe
gereral tendency is towards their slow diminution. Moreover the inequalities in the distribution of the produce between capital and labor,!however they may shock the feeling of natural
justice, would not by their mere equalisation
afford by any means so large a fund for raising
the lower levels of remuneration as Socialists,




SOCIALISM.


91:


and many besides Socialists, are apt to suppose.
Thcre is not any one abuse or injustice now prevasiing in society by merely abolishing which
cle human race would pass out of suffering into
happiness. What is incumbent on us is a calm
c(omparison between two different systems ot
society, with a view of determining which ot
them affords the greatest resources for overcoming the inevitable difficulties of life. And if we
find the answer to this question more difficult,
and more dependent upon intellectual and moral
conditions, than is usually thought, it is satisfactory to reflect that there is time before us for the
question to work itself out on an experimental
scale, by actual trial.  I believe we shall find
that no other test is possible of the practicability or beneficial operation of Socialist arrangements; but that the intellectual and moral
grounds of Socialism deserve the most attentive study, as affording in many cases the
guiding principles of the improvements necessary
to give the present economic system of society
its best cha;:ce.




SOCIALISAL


THE DIFFICULTIES OF SOCLALISM.
Among those who call themselves Socialists,
two kinds of persons may be distinguishe,.
There are, in the first place, those whose plans
for a new order of society, in which private property and individual competition are to be superseded and other motives to action substituted,
are on the scale of a village community or township, and would be applied to an entire country
by the multiplication of such self-acting units;
of this character are the systems of Owen, of
Fourier, and the more thoughtful and philosophic Socialists generally. The other class, who
are more a product of the Continent than of
Great Britain and may be called the revolutionary Socialists, propose to themselves a much
lolder stroke. Their scheme is the management
of the whole productive resources of the country
by one central authority, the general government. And with this view some of them avow
as their purpose that the working classes, or
somebody in their behalf, should take possession




SOCIALISM.


93


of all the property of the country, and administer
it for the general benefit.
Whatever be the difficulties of the first of
these two forms of Socialism, the second must
evidently involve the same difficulties and many
more. The former, too, has the great advantage
that it can be brought into operation progressively, and can prove its capabilities by trial.
It can be tried first on a select population and extended to others as their education and cultivation
permit. It need not, and in the natural order of
things would not, become an engine of subversion until it had shown itself capable of being
also a means of reconstruction. It is not so with
the other: the aim of that is to substitute the
new rule for the old at a single stroke, and to
exchange the amount of good realised under the
present system, and its large possibilities of improvement, for a plunge without any preparation
into the most extreme form of the problem of
carrying on the whole round of the operations of
social life without the motive power which has
alwavs hitherto worked the social machinery. It




J4


SOCIALISM.


must be acknowledged that those who would
play this game on the strength of their own
private opinion, unconfirmed as yet by any experimental verification-who would forcibly deprive all who have now a comfortable physical
existence of their only present means of preserving it, and would brave the frightful bloodshed
and misery that would ensue if the attempt was
resisted-must have a serene confidence in their
own wisdon on the one hand and a recklessness
of other people's sufferings on the other, which
Robespierre and St. Just, hitherto the typical
instances of those united attributes, scarcely
came up to. Nevertheless this scheme has great
elements of popularity which the more cautious
and reasonable form of Socialism has not;
because what it professes to do it promises to do
quickly, and holds out hope to the enthusiastic
<f seeing the whole of their aspirations realised
in their own time and at a blow.
The peculiarities, however, of the revolutionary form of Socialism will be most conveniently




SOCIALISM.


95O


examined after the considerations common to
iboth the forms have been duly weighed.
The produce of the world could not attain
anything approaching to its present amount, nor
support anything approaching to the present
number of its inhabitants, except upon two conditions: abundant and costly machinery, buildings, and other instruments of production; and
the power of undertaking long operations and
waiting a considerable time for their fruits. In
other words, there must be a large accumulation
of capital, both fixed in the implements and
buildings, and circulating, that is employed in
maintaining the laborers and their families during the time which elapses before the productive
operations are completed and the products come
in. This necessity depends on physical laws,
and is inherent in the condition of human life;
but these requisites of production, the capital,
fixed and circulating, of the country (to which
has to be added the land, and all that is contained in it), may either be the collective property of those who use it, or may belong to indi



9G


SOCIALISM.


viduals; and the question is, which of these
arrangements is most conducive to human happiness. What is characteristic of Socialism is
the joint ownership by all the members of the
community of the instruments and means of pro
(luction; which carries with it the consequence
that the division of the produce among the body
of owners must be a public act, performed ac
cording to rules laid down by the community
Socialism by no means excludes private ownei -
ship of articles of consumption; the exclusive
right of each to his or her share of the produce
when recieved, either to enjoy, to give, or to exchange it. The land, for example, might b.
wholly the property of the community for agricultural and other productive purposes, and
might be cultivated on their joint account, and
yet the dwelling assigned to each individual or
family as part of their remuneration might be as
exclusively theirs, while they continued to fulfil
their share of the common labors, as any one's
house now is; and not the dwelling only, but any
ornamental ground which the circumstances of the




SOCIALISM.


97


association allowed to be attached to the house for
purposes of enjoyment. The distinctive feature
of Socialism is not that all things are in common,
but that production is only carried on upon the
common account, and that the instruments of
production are held as common property. The
practicability then of Socialism, on the scale of
Mr. Owen's or M. Fourier's villages, admits of no
dispute. The attempt to manage the whole production of a nation by one central organization
is a totally different matter; but a mixed agricultural and manufacturing association of from
two thousand to four thousand inhabitants under
any tolerable circumstances of soil and climate
would be easier to manage than many a joint
stock company. The question to be considered
is, whether this joint management is likely to be
as efficient and successful as the managements of
private industry by private capital. And this
question has to be considered in a double aspect;
the efficiency of the directing mind, or minds,
and that of the simple workpeople. And in order
to state this question in its simplest form, we will
G




98


SOCIALISM.


suppose the form of Socialism to be simple Communism, i. e. equal division of the produce among
all the sharers, or, according to AM. Louis Blanc's
still higher standard of justice, apportionment of
it according to difference of need, but without
making any difference of reward according to the
nature of the duty nor according to the supposed
merits or services of the individual. There are
other forms of Socialism, particularly Fourierism,
which do, on considerations of justice or expediency, allow differences of remuneration for different kinds or degrees of service to the community  but the consideration of these may be
f)r the present postponed.
The difference between the motive powers in!!e economy of society under private property
and under Communism would be greatest in the
case of the directing minds.  Under the present
system, the direction being entirely in the hands of
the person or persons who own (or are personally
responsible for) the capital, the whole benefit of
the difference between the best administration
and the worst under which the business can con



SOCIALISM.


tinue to be carried on accrues to the person or
persons who control the administration: they
reap the whole profit of good management except
so far as their self-interest or liberality induce
them to share it with their subordinates; and
they suffer the whole detriment of mismanagement except so far as this may cripple their subsequent power of employing labor. This strong
personal motive to do their very best and utmost
for the efficiency and economy of the operations,
would not exist under Communism; as the
managers would only receive out of the produce
the same equal dividend as the other members of
the association. What would remain would be
the interest common to all in so managing affairs
as to make the dividend as large as possible; the
incentives of public spirit, of conscience, and of
the honor and credit of the managers. The force
of these motives, especially when combined, is
great. But it varies greatly in different persons,
and is much greater for some purposes than for
others. The verdict of experience, in the imperfect degree of moral cultivation which mankind




100


SOCIALISM.


have yet reached, is that the motive of conscience
and that of credit and reput.tion, even when
they are of some strength, ale, in the majority of
cases, much stronger as restraining than as impelling forces-are more to be depended on for
preventing wrong, than for calling forth the fullest energies in the pursuit of ordinary occupations. In the case of most men the only inducement which has been found sufficiently constant
and unflagging to overcome the ever-present influence of indolence and love of ease, and induce
men to apply themselves unrelaxingly to work
for the most part in itself dull and unexciting, is
the prospect of bettering their own economic
condition and that of their family; and the
closer the connection of every increase of exertion
with a corresponding increase of its fruits, the
more powerful is this motive. To suppose the
contrary would be to imply that with men as
they now are, duty and honor are more powerful
principles of action than personal interest, not
solely as to special acts and forbearances respecting which those sentiments have been exception



SOCIALISM.


101


ally cultivated, but in the regulation of their
whole lives; which no one, I suppose, will affirm.
It may be said that this inferior efficacy of public
and social feelings is not inevitable-is the result
of imperfect education. This I am quite ready
to admit, and also that there are even now many
individual exceptions to the general infirmity.
But before these exceptions can grow into a majority, or even into a very large minority, much
time will be required. The education of human
beings is one of the most difficult of all arts, and
this is one of the points in which it as hitherto
been least successful; moreover improvements in
general education are necessarily very gradual
because the future generation is educated by the
present, and the imperfections of the teachers
set an invincible limit to the degree in which
they can train their pupils to be better than
themselves.  We must therefore expect, unless
we are operating upon a select portion of the
population, that personal interest will for a long
time be a more effective stimulus to the most
vigorous and careful conduct of the industrial




102


SOCIALISM.


business of society than motives of a higher
character. It will be said that at present the
greed of personal gain by its very excess counteracts its own end by the stimulus it gives to
reckless and often dishonest risks. This it does,
and under Communism that source of evil
would generally be absent.   It is probable,
indeed, that enterprise either of a bad or of a
good kind would be a deficient element, and that
business in general would fall very much under
the dominion of routine; the rather, as the performance of duty in such communities has to be
enforced by external sanctions, the more nearly
each person's duty can be reduced to fixed rules,
the easier it is to hold him to its performance.
A circumstance which increases the probability
of this result is the limited power which the
managers would have of independent action.
They would of course hold their authority from
the choice of the community, by whom their
function might at any time be withdrawn from
them; and this would make it necessary for
them, even if not so required by the constitutiol




SOCIALISM.


103


of the community, to obtain the general consent
of the body before making any change in the
established mode of carrying on the concern. The
difficulty of persuading a numerous body to make
a change in their accustomed mode of working, oI
which change the trouble is often great, and the
risk more obvious to their minds than the
advantage, would have a great tendency to keep
things in their accustomed track. Against this
it has to be set, that choice by the persons who
are directly interested in the success of the
work, and who have practical knowledge and
opportunities of judgment, might be expected
on the average to produce managers of greater
skill than the chances of birth,which now so often
determine who shall be the owner of the capital.
This may be true; and though it may be replied
that the capitalist by inheritance can also, like
the community, appoint a manager more capable
than himself, this would only place him on the
same level of advantage as the community, not
on a higher level. But it must be said on the
other side that under the Communist system the




for


SOCIALISM.


persons most qualified for the management would
be likely very often to hang back from undertaking it. At present the manager, even if he be
a hired servant, has a very much larger remuneration than the other persons concerned in the
business; and there are open to his ambition
higher social positions to which his function of
manager is a stepping-stone. On the Communist
system none of these advantages would be
possessed by him; he could obtain only the same
dividend out of the produce of the community's
labor as any other member of it; he would no
longer have the chance of raising himself froni
a receiver of wages into the class of capitalists;
and while he could be in no way better off than
any other laborer, his responsibilities and
anxieties would be so much greater that a large
proportion of mankind would be likely to prefer
the less onerous position. This difficulty was
foreseen by Plato as an objection to the system
proposed in his Republic of community of goods
among a governing class; and the motive (IL
which he relied for inducing the fit persois t,




SOCIALISM.


105


take on themselves, in the absence of all the
ordinary inducements, the cares and labors of
government, was the fear of being governed by
worse men. This, in truth, is the motive which
would have to be in the main depended upon;
the persons most competent to the management
would be prompted to undertake the office to
prevent it from falling into less competent hands.
And the motive would probably be effectual at
times when there was an impression that by incompetent management the affairs of the community were going to ruin, or even only decidedly deteriorating. But this motive could not,
as a rule, expect to be called into action by the
less stringent inducement of merely promoting
improvement; unless in the case of inventors or
schemers eager to try some device from which
they hoped for great and immediate fruits; and
persons of this kind are very often unfitted by
over-sanguine temper and imperfect judgment
for the general conduct of affairs, while even
when fitted for it they are precisely the kind of
persons against whom the average man is apt to




106


SOCIALISM,


entertain a prejudice, and they would often be
unable to overcome the preliminary difficulty of
persuading the community both to adopt their
project and to accept them as managers. Conimunistic management would thus be, in all probability, less favorable than private management
to that striking out of new paths and making
immediate sacrifices for distant and uncertaii
advantages, which, though seldom unattended
with risk, is generally indispensable to great
improvements in the economic condition 01
mankind, and even to keeping up the existing
state in the face of a continual increase of the
number of mouths to be fed.
We have thus far taken account only of the
operation of motives upon the managing minds
of the association.  Let us now consider how
the case stands in regard to the ordinary workers.
These, under Communism, would have:n
interest, except their share of the general intetest, in doing their work honestly and energetically. But in this respect matters would I 1. nI,
worse than they now are in regard to the ';. i




SOCIALISM.


107


majority of the producing classes. These, being
paid by fixed wages, are so far from having any
direct interest of their own in the efficiency of
their work, that they have not even that share
in the general interest which every worker
would have in the Communistic organization.
Accordingly, the inefficiency of hired labor, the
imperfect manner in which it calls forth the
real capabilities of the laborers, is matter of
common remark. It is true that a character for
being a good workman is far from being without
its value, as it tends to give him a preference in
employment, and sometimes obtains for him
higher wages.  There are also possibilities of
rising to the position of foreman, or other subordinate administrative posts, which are not
only more highly paid than ordinary labor,
but sometimes open the way to ulterior advantages. But on the other side is to be set
that under Communism the general sentiment
of the community, composed of the comrades
under whose eyes each person works, would
be sure to be in favor of good and hard




108


SOCIALISM.


working, and unfavorable to laziness, carelessness, and waste.  In the present system
not only is this not the case, but the public opinion of the workman class often acts in the very
opposite direction: the rules of some trade
societies actually forbid their members to exceed
a certain standard of efficiency, lest they should
diminish the number of laborers required for the
work; and for the same reason they often violently resist contrivances for economising labor. The
change from this to a state in which every person would have an interest in rendering every
other person as industrious, skilful, and careful
as possible (which would be the case under Communism), would be a change very much for the
better.
It is, however, to be considered that the principal defects of the present system in respect to
the efficiency of labor may be corrected, and tle
chief advantages of Communism in that respect
may be obtained, by arrangements compatible
with private property and individual competition.
Considerable improvement is already obtained




SOCIALISM.


109'


by piece-work, in the kinds of labor which admit
of it. By this the workman's personal interest
is closely connected with the quantity of work
he turns out-not so much with its quality, the
security for which still has to depend on the
employer's vigilance; neither does piece-work
carry with it the public opinion of the workman
class, which is often, on the contrary, strongly
opposed to it, as a means of (as they think)
diminishing the market for laborers. And ther(
is really good ground for their dislike of piecework, if, as is alleged, it is a frequent practice oi
employers, after using piece-work to ascertain the
utmost which a good workman can do, to fix the
price of piece-work so low that by doing that
utmost he is not able to earn more than they
would be obliged to give him as day wages for
ordinary work.
But there is a far more complete remedy than
piece-work f)r the disadvantages of hired labor,
viz., what is inow called industrial partnershipthe admission of the whole body of laborers to a
participation in the profits, by distributing among




1.10


SOCIALISM.


all who share in the work, in the form of a percentage on their earnings, the whole or a fixed
portion of the gains after a certain remuneration
has been allowed to the capitalist. This plan has
been found of admirable efficacy, both in this
country and abroad. It has enlisted the sentiments of the workmen employed on the side of
the most careful regard by all of them to the
general interest of the concern; and by its joint
effect in promoting zealous exertion and checking
waste, it has very materially increased the remuneration of every description of labor in the
concerns in which it has been adopted. It is
evident that this system admits of indefinite
extension and of an indefinite increase in the
share of profits assigned to the laborers, short of
that which would leave to the managers less than
the needful degree of personal interest in the
success of the concern. It is even likely that
when such arrangements become common, many
of these concerns would at some period or another, on the death or retirement of the chief's




SOCIA LISM.


111


pass, by arrangement, into the state of purely cooperative associations.
It thus appears that as far as concerns the
motives to exertion in the general body, Conmunism has no advantage which may not be
reached under private property, while as respects
the managing heads it is at a considerable disadvantage. It has also some disadvantages which
seem to be inherent in it, through the necessity
under which it lies of deciding in a more or less
arbitrary manner questions which, on the present
system, decide themselves, often badly enough,
but spontaneously.
It is a simple rule, and under certain aspects a
just one, to give equal payment to all who share
in the work. But this is a very imperfectjustice
unless the work also is apportioned equally.
Now the many different kinds of work required
in every society are very unequal in hardness and
unpleasantness. To measure these against one
another, so as to make quality equivalent to
quantity, is so difficult that Communists generally propose that all should work by turns at




112


SOCIALISM.


every kind of labor. But this involves an almost
complete sacrifice of the economic advantages of
the division of employments, advantages which
ar1e indeed frequently over-estimated (or rather
tlc counter considerations are under-estimated)
Iby political economists, but which are nevertheless, in the point of view of the productiveness of
labor, very considerable, for the double reason
that the co-operation of employment enables the
work to distribute itself with some regard to the
special capacities and qualifications of the
worker, and also that every worker acquires
greater skill and rapidity in one kind of work by
confining himself to it. The arrangement, therefore, which is deemed indispensable to a just distribution would probably be a very considerable
disadvantage in respect of production. But
further, it is still a very imperfect standard of
justice to demand the same amount of work from
every one. People have unequal capacities of
work, both mental and bodily, and what is a light
task for one is an insupportable burthen to another.  It is necessary, therefore, that there




SOCIALISM.


113


should be a dispensing power, an authority competent to grant exemptions from the ordinary
amount ot work, and to proportion tasks in solne
measure to capabilities. As long as there are
Any lazy or selfish persons who like better to be
worked for by others than to work. t.hlee will l)e
frequent attempts to obtain exemptions,y favor
or fraud, and the frustration of these attempts
will be an affair of considerable difficulty, and
will by no means be always successful. These
inconveniences would be little felt, for some
time at least, in communities composed of
select persons, earnestly desirous of the
success of the   experiment; but plans for
the regeneration of society must consider average human beings, and not only them but the
large residuum of persons greatly below the
average in the personal and social virtues. The
squabbles and ill-blood which could not fail to
be engendered by the distribution of work
whenever such persons have to be dealt with,
would be a great abatement from the harmony
and unanimity which Communists hope would
H




114


SOCIALISM.


be found among the members of their association. That concord would, even in the most
fortunate circumstances, be much more liable to
disturbance than  Communists suppose.    The
institution  provides that there shall be no
quarrelling about material interests; individualism is excluded from that department of affairs.
But there are other departments from which no
institutions can exclude it: there will still be
rivalry for reputation and for personal power.
When selfish ambition is excluded from    the
field in which, with most men, it chiefly exercises itself, that of riches and pecuniary interest,
it would betake itself with greater intensity to
the domain still open to it, and we may expect
that the struggles for pre-eminence and for
influence in the management would be of great
bitterness when the personal passions, diverted
from their ordinary channel, are driven to seek
their principal gratification in that other direction. For these various reasons it is probable
that a Communist association would frequently
fail to exhibit the attractive picture of mutual




SOCIALISM.


115


love and unity of will and feeling which we are
often told by Communists to expect, but would
)ften be torn by dissension and not unfrequently
b)roken up by it.
Other and numerous sources of discord are
inherent in the necessity which the Communist
principle involves, of deciding by the general
voice questions of the utmost importance to
every one, which on the present system can be
and are left to individuals to decide, each for his
own case. As an example, take the subject of
education. All Socialists are strongly impressed
with the all-importance of the training given to
the young, not only for the reasons which apply
universally, but because their demands being
much greater than those of any other system
upon the intelligence and morality of the individual citizen, they have even more at stake
than any other societies on the excellence of
their educational arrangements.  Now under
Communism these arrangements would have to
be made for every citizen by the collective body,
since individual parents, supposing them to pre



116


SOCIALIS,.


fer some other mode of educating their children,
would have no private means of paying for it,
and would be limited to what they could do by
their own personal teaching and influence. But
every adult member of the body would have an
equal voice in determining the collective system
designed for the benefit of all. Here, then, is a
most fruitful source of discord in every association. All who had any opinion or preference as
to the education they would desire for their own
children, would have to rely for their chance ol
obtaining it upon the influence they could exercise in the joint decision of the community.
It is needless to specify a number of other
important questions affecting the mode of employing the productive resources of the association, the conditions of social life, the relations oi
the body with other associations, &c., on which
difference of opinion, often irreconcilable, would
be likely to arise. But even the dissensions
which might be expected would be a far less
evil to the prospects of humanity than a delusive unanimity produced by the prostration of




SOCIALISM,


117


all individual opinions and wishes before the
decree of the majority. The obstacles to human
progression are always great, and require a concurrence of favorable circumstances to overcome
them; but an indispensable condition of their
t eing overcome is, that human nature should
have freedom to expand spontaneously in various directions, both in thought and practice;
that people should both think for themselves
and try experiments for themselves, and should
not resign into the hands of rulers, whether
acting in the name of a few or of the majority,
the business of thinking for them, and of prescribing how they shall act. But in Communist
associations private life would be brought in a
most unexampled degree within the dominion of
public authority, and there would be less scope
for the development of individual character and
individual preferences than has hitherto existed
among the full citizens of any state belonging to
the progressive branches of the human family.
Already in all societies the compression of individuality by the majority is a great and growing




118


SOCIALISM.


evil; it would probably be much greater under
Communism, except so far as it might be in the
power of individuals to set bounds to it by,electing to belong to a community of persons;ke-minded with themselves.
From these various considerations I do not
-eek to draw any inference against the possibility that Communistic production is capable
of being at some future time the form of society
best adapted to the wants and circumstances or
mankind. I think that this is, and will long be,
an open question, upon which fresh light will
continually be obtained, both by trial of th]
Communistic principle un;er favorable circum-t ances, and by the improvements which will be
raidually effected in the working of the exist",: system, that of private ownership. The one
ce'tainty is, that Communism, to be successfill
requires a high standard of both moral and inteilectual education in all the members of the
community-moral, to qualify them for doin!
t!eir part honestly and energetically in the labor
of life under no intcc -:ii' t lt their share in




SOCIALISM.


119


the general interest of the association, and their
feelings of duty and sympathy towards it; intellectual, to make them capable of estimating
distant interests and entering into complex considerations, sufficiently at least to be able to discriminate, in these matters, good counsel from
bad. Now I reject altogether the notion that it
is impossible for education and cultivation such
as is implied in these things to be made the inheritance of every person in the nation; but I
am convinced that it is very difficult, and that
the passage to it from our present condition can
only be slow. I admit the plea that in the points
of moral education on which the success of communism depends, the present state of society is
demoralizing, and that only a Communistic association can effectually train mankind for Communism. It is for Communism, then, to prove,
by practical experiment, its power of giving this
training. Experiments alone can show whether
there is as yet in any portion of the population a
sufficiently high level of moral cultivation to
make Communism succeed, and to give to the
next generation among themselves the education
necessary to keep up that high level permanently.
1f Communist associations show that they can be




120


SOCIALISM.


durable and prosperous, they will multiply, and
will probably be adopted by successive portions
of the population of the more advanced countries
as they become morally fitted for that mode of
life. But to force unprepared populations into
Communist societies, even if a political revolution gave the power to make such an attempt,
would end in disappointment.
If practical trial is necessary to test the capabilities of Communism, it is no less required for
those other forms of Socialism which recognize
the difficulties of Communism and contrive means
to surmount them. The principal of these is
Fourierism, a system which, if only as a specimen
of intellectual ingenuity, is highly worthy of the
attention of any student, either of society or of
the human mind. There is scarcely an objection
or a difficulty which Fourier did not forsee, and
against which he did not make provision beforehand by self-acting contrivances, grounded, however, upon a less high principle of distributive
iustice than that of Communism, since he admits
inequalities of distribution and individual ownership of capital, but not the arbitrary disposal of
it. The great problem which he grapples with
is how to make labor attractive, since, if this




SOCIALISM.


121


could be done, the principal difficulty of Socialism
would be overcome. He maintains that no kind
of useful labor is necessarily or universally repugnant, unless either excessive in amount or
devoid of the stimulus of companionship and
emulation, or regarded by mankind with contempt. The workers in a Fourierist village are
to class themselves spontaneously in groups, each
group undertaking a different kind of work, and
the same person may be a member not only of
one group but of any number; a certain minimum
having first been set apart for the subsistence of
every member of the community, whether capable
or not of labor, the society divides the remainder
of the produce among the different groups, in
such shares as it finds attract to each the amount
of labor required, and no more; if there is too
great a run upon particular groups it is a sign
that those groups are over-remunerated relatively
to others; if any are neglected their remuneration must be made higher. The share of produce
assigned to each group is divided in fixed proportions among three elements-labor, capital, and
talent; the part assigned to talent being awarded
by the suffrages of the group itself, and it is
hoped that among the variety of human capaci



122


SOCIALISM.


ties all, or nearly all, will be qualified to excei
some group or other. The remuneration for capital is to be such as is found sufficient to induce
savings from individual consumption, in order te
increase the common stock to such point as is
desired. The number and ingenuity of the contrivances for meeting minor difficulties, and
getting rid of minor inconveniencies, is very remarkable. By means of these various provisions
it is the expectation of Fourierists that the personal inducements to exertion for the public
interest, instead of being taken away, would be
made much greater than at present, since every
increase of the service rendered would be much
more certain of leading to increase of reward
than it is now, when accidents of position have
so much influence. The efficiency of labor, they
therefore expect, would be unexampled, while the
saving of labor would be prodigious, by diverting
to useful occupations that which is now wasted
on things useless or hurtful, and by dispensing
with the vast number of superfluous distributors.
the buying and selling for the whole community
being managed by a single agency. The free
cvoice of individuals as to their manner of life
would be no further interfered with than wotl,




SOCIALISM.


123


be necessary for gaining the full advantages of
c;-operation  in the industrial operations.     A1 -together, the picture of a Fourierist community
's both attractive in itself and requires less from
colmmon humanity than any other known system
o(i Scialism; and it is much to be desired that
the scheme should have that fair trial which
alone can test the workableness of any new
scheme of social life.*
The result of our review of the various difficulties of Socialism has led us to the conclusion
that the various schemes for managing the productive resources of the country by public
instead of private agency have a case for a trial.
and some of them may eventually establish their
claims to preference over the existing order of
things, but that they are at present workable
* The principles of Fourierism are clearly set forth and
powerfully defended in the various writings of M. Victor
Considerant, especially that entitled La Destinee Sociale;
but the curious inquirer will do well to study them in the
writings of Fourier himself; where he will find unmistakable
proofs of genius, mixed, however with the wildest and most
unsc:entific fancies respecting the physical world, and much
interesting but rash speculation on the past and future history
of humanity. It is proper to add that on some important
social questions, for instance on marriage, Fourier had pecu.
liar opinions, which, however, as he himself declares, are quite
independent of, and separable from, the principles of his industrial system.




12-4


SOCIALISM.


only by the glite of mankind, and have yet ti
prove their power of training mankind at large
to the state of improvement which they presuppose. Far more, of course, may this be said of
the more ambitious plan which aims at takin,
possession of the whole land and capital of the
country, and beginning at once to administer
it on the public account.    Apart from  all
consideration of injustice to the present possessors, the very idea of conducting the whole
industry of a country by direction from a single
centre is so obviously chimerical, that nobody
ventures to propose any mode in which it should
be done; and it can hardly be doubted that if
the revolutionary Socialists attained their immediate object, and actually had the whole property
of the country at their disposal, they would finu
no other practicable mode of exercising their
power over it than that of dividing it into Iportions, each to be made over to the administlation of a small Socialist community. The pi<,>blem of management, which we have seen to be
so difficult even to a select population well pXepared beforehand, would be thrown down to be
solved as best it could by aggregations unitcd(
only by locality, or taken indiscriminately fiuili




SOCIALISM.


125


the population, including all the malefactors, all
the idlest and most vicious, the most incapable of
steady industry, forethought, or self-control, and
a majority who, though not equally degraded.
are yet, in the opinion of Socialists themselves,
as far as regards the qualities essential for the
success of Socialism, profoundly demoralised by
the existing state of society. It is saying but
little to say that the introduction of Socialism
under such conditions could have no effect but
disastrous failure, and its apostles could have
only the consolation that the order of society as
it now exists would have perished first, and all
who benefit by it would be involved in the common ruin-a consolation which to some of them
would probably be real, for if appearances can
be trusted the animating principle of too many
of the revolutionary Socialists is hate; a very
excusable hatred of existing evils, which would
vent itself by putting an end to the present system at all costs even to those who suffer by it, inl
the hope that out of chaos would arise a better
Kosraos, and in the impatience of desperation
respecting any more gradual improvement. They
are unaware that chaos is the very most unfavorable position for setting out in the construction
of a Kosmos, and that many ages of conflict, vio



SOCIALI, SM.


lence, and tyrannical oppression of the weak by
the strong must intervene; they know not that
they would plunge mankind into the state of;ature so forcibly described by Hobbes (Leviuhan, Part I. ch. xiii.), where every man is enemy:o every man:"In such condition there is no place for indus-;ry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and
consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation, no use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no
instruments of moving and removing such things
as require much force, no knowledge of the face
of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no
letters, no society; and, which is worst of all,
continual fear and danger of violent death; and
the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short."
If the poorest and most wretched members of
a so-called civilised society are in as bad a condition as every one would be in that worst form
of barbarism produced by the dissolution of
civilised life, it does not follow that the way to
raise them would be to reduce all others to the
same miserable state. On the contrary, it is by
the aid of the first who have risen that so many
others have escaped from the general lot, and it
is only by better organization of the same process that it may be hoped in time to succeed in
raisins the remainder.




SOCIALISM1.


127


THE IDEA OF PRIVATE PROPERTY NOT FIXED
BUT VARIABLE.
The preceding considerations appear sufficient
to show that an entire renovation of the social
fabric, such as is contemplated by Socialism,
establishing the economic constitution of society
upon an entirely new basis, other than that of
private property and competition, however valuable as an ideal, and even as a prophecy of ultimate possibilities, is not available as a present
resource, since it requires from those who
are to carry on the new order of things
qualities both moral and intellectual, which
require to be tested in all, and to be created in
most; and this cannot be done by an Act of
Parliament, but must be, on the most favorable
supposition, a work of considerable time. For a
long period to come the principle of individual
property will be in possession of the field; and
even if in any country a popular movement were
to place Socialists at the head of a revolutionary
government, in however many ways they might
violate private property, the institution itself
would survive, and would either be accepted by
theli  or brought back by their expulsion, for the
plain reason that people will not lose their hold




128


SOCIALISM.


of what is at present their sole reliance for subsistence and security until a substitute for it has
beeen got into working order. Even those, if
any, who had shared among themselves what was
the property of others would desire to keep what
they had acquired, and to give back to property
in the new hands the sacredness which they had
not recognised in the old.
But though, for these reasons, individual property has presumably a long term before it, if
only of provisional existence, we are not, therefore, to conclude that it must exist during that
whole term unmodified, or that all the rights now
regarded as appertaining to property belong to
it inherently, and must endure while it endures.
On the contrary, it is both the duty and the
interest of those who derive the most direct
benefit from the laws of property to give impartial consideration to all proposals for rendering
those laws in any way less onerous to the majority. This, which would in any case be an obligation of justice, is an injunction of prudence
also, in order to place themselves in the right
against the attempts which are sure to be frequent to bring the Socialist forms of society prematurely into operation.




SOCIALISM


129


One of the mistakes oftenest committed, and
which are the sources of the greatest practical
errors in human affairs, is that of supposing that
the same name always stands for the same
aggregation of ideas. No word has been the
subject of more of this kind of misunderstanding
than the word property. It denotes in every
state of society the largest powers of exclusive
use or exclusive control over things (and sometimes, unfortunately, over persons) which the
law accords, or which custom, in that state of
society, recognizes; but these powers of exclusive use and ointrol are very various, and differ
greatly in different countries and in different
states of society.
For instance, in early states of society, the
right of property did not include the right of
bequest. The power of disposing of property by
will was in most countries of Europe a rather
late institution; and long after it was introduced it continued to be limited in favor of what
were called natural heirs. Where bequest is not
permitted, individual property is only a life
interest. And in fact, as has been so well and
fully set forth by Sir Henry Maine in his most
instructive work on Ancient Law, the primitive
I




130


SOCIALISM.


idea of property was that it belonged to the
family, not the individual. The head of the
family had the management and was the person
wvho really exercised the proprietary rights. As
in other respects, so in this, he governed the
family with nearly despotic power. But he was
not free so to exercise his power as to defeat the
co-proprietors of the other portions; he could not
so dispose of the property as to deprive them of
the joint enjoyment or of the succession. By the
laws and customs of some nations the property
could not be alienated without the consent of the
male children; in other cases the child could by
law demand a division of the property and the
assignment to him of his share, as in the story
of the Prodigal Son. If the association kept
together after the death of the head, some other
member of it, no' always his son, but often the
eldest of the family, the strongest, or the one
selected by the rest, succeeded to the management and to the managing rights, all the others
retaining theirs as before. If, on the othsr hand
the body broke up into separate families, each o{
these took away with it a part of the property.
I say the property, not the inheritance, because
the process was a mere continuance of existing




SOCIALISM.


131


rights, not a creation of new; the manager's
share alone lapsed to the association.
Then, again, in regard to proprietary rights
over immovables (the principal kind of property
in a rude age) these rights were of very varying
extent and duration. By the Jewish law property in immovables was only a temporary concession; on the Sabbatical year it returned to the
common stock to be redistributed; though we
may surmise that in the historical times of the
Jewish state this rule may have been successfully
evaded. In many countries of Asia, before
European ideas intervened, nothing existed to
which the expression property in land, as we
understand the phrase, is strictly applicable. The
ownership was broken up among several distinct
parties, whose rights were determined rather by
custom than by law. The government was part
owner, having the right to a heavy rent. Ancient
ideas and even ancient laws limited the government share to some particular fraction of the
gross produce, but practically there was no fixeC
limit. The government might make over its
share to an individual, who then became possessed of the right of collection and all the other
rights of the state, but not those of any private




;'32


SOCIALISI.


ierson connected with the soil. These private
righlts were of various kinds. The actual cultivators. or sech of them as had been long settled
on the land, bad a right to retain possession; it
was held unlawful to evict them while they paid
the rent-a rent not in general fixed by agreement, but by the custom of the neighborhood.
Between the actual cultivators and the state, or
the substitute to whom the state had transferred
its rights, there were intermediate persons with
rights of various extent. There were officers of
government who collected the state's share of the
produce, sometimes for large districts, who,
though bound to pay over to government all they
collected, after deducting a percentage, were
often hereditary officers. There were also, in
many cases village communities, consisting of
the reputed descendants of the first settlers of a
village, who shared among themselves either the
land or its produce according to rules established
by custom, either cultivating it themselves or
employing others to cultivate it for them, and
whose rights in the land approached nearer to
those of a landed proprietor, as understood in
England, than those of any other party concerned.
But the proprietary right of the village was not




SOCIALISM.


133


individual, but collective; inalienable (the rights
(of individual sharers could only be sold or mortgaged with the consent of the community) and
governed by fixed rules. In medieval Europe
almost all land was held from the sovereign on
tenure of service, either military or agricultural;
and in Great Britain even now, when the services as well as all the reserved rights of the
sovereign have long since fallen into disuse or
been commuted for taxation, the theory of the
law does not acknowledge an absolute right of
property in land in any individual; the fullest
landed proprietor known to the law, the freeholder, is but a " tenant" of the Crown. In Russia, even when the cultivators of the soil were
serfs of the landed proprietor, his proprietary
right in the land was limited by rights of theirs
belonging to them as a collective body managing
its owns affairs, and with which he could not
interfere. And in most of the countries of continental Europe when serfage was abolished or
went out of use, those who had cultivated the
land as serfs remained in possession of rights as
well as subject to obligations. The great land
reforms of Stein and his successors in Prussia
consisted in abolishing both the rights and the




134


SOCIALISM.


obligations, and  iidiidng the land bodily between the proprietor and the peasant, instead of
leaving each of them with a limited right over
the whole. In other cases, as in Tuscan y, the
mnetayer farmer is virtually co-proprietor with
the landlord, since custom, though not law,
guarantees to hin a permanent possession and
half the gross produce, so long as he fulfils the
customary conditions of his tenure.
Again: if rights of property over the same
things are of different extent in different countries, so also are they exercised over different
things. In all countries at a former time, and
in some countries still, the right of property extended and extends to the ownership of human
beings. There has often been property in public
trusts, as in judicial offices, and a vast multitude
of others in France before the Revolution; there
are still a few patent offices in Great Britain,
though I believe they will cease by operation of
law onil the death of the present holders; and we
are only no\ abolishing property in army rank.
P ublic bodies,-  constituted and endowed for
piublic purposes, still claim the same inviolable
right of property in their estates which individutl haitv\ inl thleis, alnd though a sound




SOCIALISM.


135


political morality does not acknowledge this
claim, the law supports it. We thus see that
the right of property is differently interpreted,
and held to be of different extent, in different
times and places; that the conception entertained of it is a varying conception, has been
frequently revised, and may admit of still
further revision. It is also to be noticed that the
revisions which it has hitherto undergone in the
progress of society have generally been improvements.   When, therefore, it is maintained,
rightly or wrongly, that some change or modification in the powers exercised over things by
the persons legally recognised as their proprietors would be beneficial to the public and conducive to the general improvement, it is no good
answer to this merely to say that the proposed
change conflicts with the idea of property.
The idea of property is not some one thing,
identical throughout history and incapable of
alteration, but is variable like all other creations of the human mind; at any given time
it is a brief expression denoting the rights over
things conferred by the law or custom of some
given society at that time; but neither on this
point nor on any other has the law and custom
of a given time and place a claim to be stereo



136


SOCIALISM.


typed for ever. A proposed reform in laws or
customs is not necessarily objectionable because
its adoption would imply, not the adaptation of
all human affairs to the existing idea of property, but the adaptation of existing ideas of
property to the growth and improvement of
human affairs. This is said without prejudice to
the equitable claim of proprietors to be compensated by the state for such legal rights of a prolpietary nature as they may be dispossessed of
for the public advantage. That equitable claim
the grounds and the just limits of it, are a subject by itself, and as such will be discussed hereafter. Under this condition, however, society is
fully entitled to abrogate or alter any particular
right of property which on sufficient consideration it judges to stand in the way of the public
r..ood. And assuredly the terrible case which, as
we saw in a former chapter, Socialists are able to
nake out against the present economic order of
society, demands a full consideration  of all
nmeans by which the institution may have a
chance of being made to work in a manner more
beneficial to that large portion of society which
at present enjoys the least share of its direct
E Ene fits.
THE END,




UTILITARIAN ISM.




, ~ ~ ~ ~. -   r,.~  *.
-^ f.-  ' -


i       f




UTILITARIANISM.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL REMARKS.
T   HERE are few circumstances among those
which made up the present condition of
human knowledge, more unlike what might have
been expected, or more significant of the backward state in which speculation on the most
imlportant subjects still lingers, than the little
progress which has been made in the decision of
the controversy respecting the criterion of right
and wrong. From the dawn of philosophy, the
question concerning the summum bonum, or
what is the same thing, concerning the foundation of morality, has been accounted the main
problem in speculative thought, has occupied the
most gifted intellects, and divided them into




4


UTILITARIANISM.


sects and schools, carrying on a vigorous warfare
against one another. And after more than two
thousand years the same discussions continue,
philosophers are still ranged under the same
contending banners, and neither thinkers nor
mankind at large seem nearer to being unanimous
on the subject, than when the youth Socrates
listened to the old Protagoras, and asserted (if
Plato's dialogue be grounded on a real conversation) the theory of utilitarianism against the
popular morality of the so-called sophist.
It is true that similar confusion and uncertainty, and in some cases similar discordance,
exist respecting the first principles of all the
sciences, not excepting that which is deemed the
most certain of them, mathematics; without
much impairing, generally indeed without inpairing at all, the trustworthiness of the conclusions of those sciences. An apparent anomaly,
the explanation of which is, that the detailed
doctrines of a science are not usually deduced
from, nor depend for their evidence upon, what
are called its first principles. Were it not so,




UTILITARIANISM.


5


there would be no science more precarious, or
whose conclusions were more insufficiently made
out, than algebra; which derives none of its
certa' ty from what are commonly taught to
learners as its elements, since these, as laid down
by some of its most eminent teachers, are as full
of fictions as English law, and of mysteries as
theology. The truths which are ultimately
accepted as the first principles of a science, are
really the last results of metaphysical analysis,
practised on the elementary notions with which
the science is conversant; and their relation to
the science is not that of foundations to an edifice, but of roots to a tree, which may perform
their office equally well though they be never dug
down to and exposed to light. But though in
science the articular truths precede the general
theory, the contrary might be expected to be the
case with a practical art, such as morals or
legislation. All action is for the sake of some
end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and
color from the end to which they are subser



G


UTILITARIANISM.


vient. When we engage in a pursuit, a clear
and precise conception of what we are pursuing
would seem to be the first thing we need, instead
of the last we are to look forward to. A test of
right and wrong must be the means, one would
think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and
not a consequence of having already ascertained it.
The difficulty is not avoided by having recourse
to the popular theory of a natural faculty, a
sense or instinct, informing us of right and
wrong. For-besides that the existence of such
a moral instinct is itself one of the matters in
dispute-those believers in it who have any pretensions to philosophy, have been obliged t(
abandon the idea that it discerns what is right
or wrong in the particular case in hand, as ou'
other senses discern the sight or sound actually
present.  Our mnoralfaculty, according to all
those of its interpreters who are entitled to the
name of thinkers, supplies us only with the general
principles of moral judgments; it is a branch of
our reason, not of our::u:;:itive faculty; and




UTILITARIANISM.


7


must be looked to for the abstract doctrines of
morality, not for perception of it in the con.
crete. The intuitive, no less than what may be
termed inductive, school of ethics, insists on tht
necessity of general laws   They both agree
that the morality of an individual action is not
a question of direct perception, but of the application of a law to an individual case. They
recognize also, to a great extent, the same moral
laws; but differ as to their evidence, and the
source from which they derive their authority.
According to the one opinion, the principles of
morals are evident a priori, requiring nothing
to command assent, except that the meaning of
the terms be understood. According to the other
doctrine, right and wrong, as well as truth and
falsehood, are questions of observation and ex.
perience. But both hold equally that moraliy
must be deduced from principles; and the intuitive school affirm as strongly as the inductive,
that there is a science of morals. Yet they seldom attempt to make out a list of the a priori
principles which are to serve as the premises of the




8


UTILITARIANISM.


science; still more rarely do they make any effort
to reduce those various principles to one first
principle, or common ground of obligation. They
either assume the ordinary precepts of morals
as of a priori authority, or they lay down as
the common groundwork of those maxims, some
generality much less obviously authoritative than
the maxims themselves, and which has never
succeeded in gaining popular acceptance. Yet
to support their pretensions there ought either to
be some one fundamental principle or law, at the
root of all morality, or if there be several, there
should be a determinate order of precedence
among them; and the one principle, or the rule
for deciding between the various principles when
they conflict, ought to be self-evident.
To inquire how far the bad effects of this
deficiency have been mitigated in practice, or to
what extent the moral beliefs of mankind have
been vitiated or made uncertain by the Ace
of any distinct recognition of an ultimate
ard, would imply a complete survey and critiL
of past and present ethical doctrine. It wo  l




UTILITARIANISM.


9


however, be easy to show that whatever steadiness or consistency these moral beliefs have
attained, has been mainly due to the tacit influence of a standard not recognized. Although
the non-existence of an acknowledged first
principle has made ethics not so much a guide as
a consecration of men's actual sentiments, still,
as men's sentiments, both of favor and of aversion, are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effects of things upon their
happiness, the principle of utility, or as Bentham
latterly called it, the greatest happiness principle,
has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject
its authority. Nor is there any school of thought
which refuses to admit that the influence of
actions on happiness is a most material and even
predominant consideration in many of the details of morals, however unwilling to acknowledge it as the fundamental principle of morality,
and the source of moral obligation. I might go
much further, and say to all those c priori
moralists who deem it necessary to argue at all,




10


UTILITARIANISM.


utilitarian arguments are indispensable.  It is
uot my present purpose to criticize these thinkers;
but 1 cannot help referring, for illustration, to a
systematic treatise by one of the most illustrious
of them, the Metaphysics of Ethics, by Kant.
This remarkable man, whose system of thought
will long remain one of the landmarks in the
history of philosophical speculation, does, in the
treatise in question, lay down an universal first
principle as the origin and ground of moral obligation; it is this:-' So act, that the rule on
which thou actest wvould admit of being adopted
as a law by all rational beings.' But when he
begins to deduce from this precept any of the
actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of
the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct.
All he shows is that the consequences of their
universal adoption would be such as no one would
choose to incur.
On the present occasion, I shall, without fur



UTILITARIANISM.


1I


ther discussion of the other theories, attempt to
contribute something towards the understanding
and appreciation of the Utilitarian or Happiness
theory, and towards such proof as it is susceptible of. It is evident that this cannot be proot
in the ordinary and popular meaning of the term.
Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to
direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be
good, must be so by being shown to be a means
to something admitted to be good without proof.
The medical art is proved to be good, by its conducing to health; but how is it possible to prove
that health is good? The art of music is good,
for the reason, among others, that it produces
pleasure; but what proof is it possible to give
that pleasure is good? If, then, it is asserted
that there is a comprehensive formula, including
all things which are in themselves good, and that
whatever else is good, is not so as an end, but as
a mean, the formula may be accepted or rejected,
but is not a subject of what is commonly understood by proof. We are not, however, to infer
that its acceptance or rejection must depend on




12


UTILITARIANISM.


blind impulse, or arbitrary choice. There is a
larger meaning of the word proof, in which this
question is as aimenable to it as any other of t'
disputed questions of philosophy. The subject
is within the cognizance of the rational faculty;
and neither does that faculty deal with it solely
in the way of intuition.   Considerations may
be presented capable of determining the intellect
either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine; and this is equivalent to proof.
We shall examine presently of what nature
are these considerations; in what manner they
apply to the case, and what rational grounds,
therefore, can be given for accepting or rejecting
the utilitarian formula. But it is a preliminary
condition of rational acceptance or rejection, that
the formula should be correctly understood. I
believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily
formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle
which impedes its reception; and that could it
be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified,
and a large proportion of its difficulties removed.




UTILITARTANISM.             13
Before, therefore, I attempt to enter into the
philosophical grounds which can be given for
assenting to the utilitarian standard, I shall offer
some illustrations of the doctrine itself; with
the view of showing more clearly what it is,
distinguishing it from what it is not, and disposing
of such of the practical objections to it as either
originate in, or are closely connected with, mis
taken interpretations of its meaning.  Having
thus prepared the ground, I shall afterwards
endeavor to throw such light as I can upon the
question, considered as one of philosophical
theory,




14


UTILITARIANISIM


CHAPTER IL
WHAT UTILITARIANISM IS
A PASSING remark is all that needs be
given to the ignorant blunder of suppo:ing that those who stand up for utility as the
test of right and wrong, use the term in that
restricted and merely colloquial sense in which
utility is opposed to pleasure. An apology is
due to the philosophical opponents of utilitarianism, for even the momentary appearance of confounding them with any one capable of so absurd
a misconception; which is the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the contrary accusation, of
referring everything to pleasure, and that too in
its grossest form, is another of the common
charges against utilitarianism: and, as has been
pointedly remarked by an able writer, the same
sort of persons, and often the very same persons,
denounce the theory 'as impracticably dry when
the word utility precedes the word pleasure, ad1




UTILITARIANISM.            15
as too practicably voluptuous when the word
pleasure precedes the word utility.' Those who
know anything about the matter are aware that
every writer, from Epicurus to.Bentham, who
maintained the theory of utility, meant by it,
not something to be contradistinguished from
pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with
exemption from pain; and instead of opposing
the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental,
have always declared that the useful means
these, among other things. Yet the common
herd, including the herd of writers, not only in
newspapers and periodicals, but in books of
weight and pretension, are perpetually falling
into this shallow mistake. Having caught up
the word utilitarian, while knowing nothing
whatever about it but its sound, they habitually
express by it the rejection, or the neglect, of
pleasure in some of its forms; of beauty, of ornament, or of amusement. Nor is the term thus
ignorantly misapplied solely in disparagement,
but occasionally in compliment; as though it
implied su-ceriority to frivolity and the mere




16


UTILITARTANISM.


pleasures of the moment.      And this perverted
vlse is the only one in which the word is popularly known, and the one from      which the new
generation are acquiring their sole notion of its
meaning.    Those who introduced the word, but
who had for many years discontinued it as a distinctive appellation, may well feel themselves
called upon to resume it, if by doing so they can
hope to contribute anything towards rescuing it
from this utter degradation.*
The creed which accepts as the foundation of
morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion
as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of happiness.        By
The author of this essay has reason for believing himself
to be the first person who brought the word utilitarian into
use. He did not invent it, but adopted it from a passing
expression in Mr. Galt's Annals of the Parish. After using it
as a designation for several years, he and others abandoned it
from a growing dislike to anything resembling a badge or
watchword of sectarian distinction. But as a name for one
single opinion, not a set of opinions-to denote the recognition of utility as a standard, not any particular way of applying it-the term supplies a want in the lannuiage, and offers,
in many cases, a convenient mode of avoiding tiresome cir.
cumlocution.




UTILITARIANISM.


17


happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence
of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation
of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral
standard set up by the theory, much more requires \
to be said; in particular, what things it includes
in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what
extent this is left an open question. But these
supplementary explanations do not affect the
theory of life on which this theory of morality is
grounded-namely, that pleasure, and freedom
from pain, are the only things desirable as ends;
and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme)
are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in
themselves, or as means to the promotion of
pleasure and the prevention of pain.
Now, such a theory of life excites in many
minds, and among them in some of the most
estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express
it) no higher end than pleasure-no better and
nobler object of desire and pursuit-they designate as utterly mean and groveling; as a doctrine
B




is


UTILITARIANISM.


\worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of
Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern holders of the
doctrine are occasionally made the subject of
equally polite comparisons by   its  German,
French, and English assailants.
When thus attacked, the Epicureans have
always answered, that it is not they, but
their accusers, who represent human nature
in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures
except those of which swine are capable. If this
supposition were true, the charge could not be
gainsaid, but would then be no longer an imputation; for if the sources of pleasure were precisely
the same to human beings and to swine, the rule
of life which is good enough for the one would
be good enough for the other. The comparison
of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as
degrading, precisely because a beast's pleasures
do not satisfy a hutman being's conceptions of
happiness. Human beings have faculties more
elevated than the animal appetites, and when




UTILITARIANISM.


19


once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their
gratification.  I do not, indeed, consider the
Epicureans to have been by any means faultless
in drawing out their scheme of consequences
from the utilitarian principle. To do this in any
sufficient manner, many Stoic, as well as Christian elements require to be included. But there
is no known Epicurean theory of life which does
not assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the
feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to
those of mere sensation. It must be admitted,
however, that utilitarian writers in general have
placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in the greater permanency, safety,
uncostliness, &c., of the former-that is, in their
circumstantial advantages rather than in their
intrinsic nature. And on all these points utilitarians have fully proved their case; but they
might have taken the other, and, as it may be
called, higher ground, with entire consistency.
It is quite compatible with the principle of utility




20


UTILITARIANISM.


to recognise the fact, that some k-inds of pleasure
are more desirable and more valuable than others.
It would be absurd that while, in estimating all
other things, quality is considered as well as
quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be
supposed to depend on quantity alone.
If I am asked, what I mean by difference of
quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure
more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure,
except its being greater in amount, there is but
one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there
be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to
prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.
If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above
the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of
discontent, and would not resign it for any
quantity of the other pleasure which their nature
is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the
preferred enjoymenit a superiority in quality, so




UTILITARIANISM.


21


far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small amount.
Now it is an unquestionable fact that those
who are equally acquainted with, and equally
capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do
give a most marked preference to the manner of
existence which employs their higher faculties.
Few human creatures would consent to be changed
into any of the lower animals, for a promise of
the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no
intelligent human being would consent to be
a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience
would be selfish and base, even though they
should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce,
or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot
than they are with theirs. They would not
resign what they possess more than he, for the
most complete satisfaction of all the desires
which they have in common with him. If they
ever fancy they would, it is only in cases of
unhappiness so extreme, that to escape from it
they would exchange their lot for almost any




22


UTILITARIANIS3M.


other, however undesireable in their own eyes
A being of higher faculties requires more to
make him happy, is capable probably of more
acute suffering, and is certainly accessible to it
at more points, than one of an inferior type; but
in spite of these liabilities, he can never really
wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower
grade of existence. We may give what explanation we please of this unwillingness; we may
attribute it to pride, a name which is given indiscriminately to some of the most and to some
of the least estimable feelings of which mankind
are capable; we may refer it to the love of
liberty and personal independence, an appeal to
which was with the Stoics one of the most
effective means for the inculcation of it: to the
love of power, or to the love of excitement, both
of which do really enter into and contribute to
it: but its most appropriate appellation is a
sense of dignity, which all human beings possess
in one form or other, and in some, though by no
means in exact, proportion to their higher
faculties, and which is so essential a part of the




UTILITARIANISM.


23


happiness of those in whom it is strong, that
nothing which conflicts with it could be, otherwise than momentarily, an object of desire to
them. Whoever supposes that this preference
takes place at a sacrifice of happiness-that the
superior being, in anything like equal circunrstances, is not happier than the inferior-confounds the two very different ideas, of happiness,
and content. It is indisputable that the being
whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the
greatest chance of having them fully satisfied;
and a higher-endowed being will always feel
that any happiness which he can look for, as the
world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can
learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all
bearable; and they will not make him envy
the being who is indeed unconscious of the
imperfections, but only because he feels not at
all the good which those imperfections qualify.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than
a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig,
is of a different opinion, it is because they only




24


UTILITARIANISM.


know their own side of the question. The other
party to the comparison knows both sides.
It may be objected, that many who are capaMe
of the higher pleasures, occasionally, under the
influence of temptation, postpone them to the
lower. But this is quite compatible with a full
appreciation of the intrinsic superiority of the
higher. Men often, from infirmity of character,
make their election for the nearer good, though
they know it to be the less valuable; and this
no less when the choice is between two bodily
pleasures, than when it is between bodily and
mental. They pursue sensual indulgences to
the injury of health, though perfectly aware
that health is the greater good. It may be
further objected, that many who begin with
youthful enthusiasm  for everything noble, as
they advance in years sink into indolence and
selfishness.  But I do not believe that those
who undergo this very common change, voluntarily choose the lower description of pleasures
in preference to the higher.  I believe that
before they devote themselves exclusively




UTILITARIANISM.


25


to the one, they have already become incapable of the other. Capacity for the nobler
feelings is in most natures a very tender
plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in
the majority of young persons it speedily dies
away if the occupations to which their position
in life has devoted them, and the society into
which it has thrown them, are not favorable to
keeping that higher capacity in exercise. Men
lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time
or opportunity for indulging them; and they
addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not
because they deliberately prefer them, but
because they are either the only ones to which they
have access, or the only ones which they are any
longer capable of enjoying. It may be questioned whether any one who has remained
equally susceptible to both classes of pleasures,
ever knowingly and calmly preferred the
lower; though many, in all ages, have




20


UTILITARIANISM.


broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine both.
From this verdict of the only competent
judges, I apprehend there can be no appeal. On
a question which is the best worth having of
twc pleasures, or which of two modes of existence
is the most grateful to the feelings, apart from
its moral attributes and from its consequences,
the judgment of those who are qualified by
knowledge of both, or, if they differ, that of the
majority among them, must be admitted as final.
And there needs be the less hesitation to accept
this judgment respecting the quality of pleasures,
since there is no other tribunal to be referred to
even on the question of quantity. What means
are there of determining which is the acutest of
two pains, or the intensest of two pleasurable
sensations, except the general suffrage of those
who are familiar with both? Neither pains nor
pleasures are homogeneous, and pain is always
heterogeneous with pleasure. What is there to
decide whether a particular pleasure is worth
purchasing at the cost of a particulars pain,




UTILITARIANISM.


27


except the feelings and judgment of the experienced? When, therefore, those feelings and
judgment declare the pleasures derived from the
higher faculties to be preferable in kind, apart
from the question of intensity, to those of which
the animal nature, disjoined from the higher
faculties, is susceptible, they are entitled on this
subject to the same regard.
I have dwelt on this point, as being a necessary part of a perfectly just conception of Utility
or Happiness, considered as the directive rule of
human conduct. But it is by no means an indispensible condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the
agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest
amount of happiness altogether; and if it
may possibly be doubted whether a noble
character is always the happier for its nobleness,
there can be no doubt that it makes other people
happier, and that the world in general is
immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general
cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each




UTILITARIAN ISM.


individual were only benefited by the nobleness
of others, and his own, so far as happiness
is concerned, were a sheer deduction       from
the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such
an absurdity as this last, renders refutation
superfluous.
According to the Greatest Happiness Principle,
as above explained, the ultimate end, with
reference to and for the sake of which all other
things are desirable (whether we are considering
our own good or that of other people), is an
existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and
as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of
quantity and quality; the test of quality, and
the rule for measuring it against quantity, being
the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added
their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best lurnished with the means of
comparison. This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may
accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for




UTILITARIANISM.


29


human conduct, by the observance of which an
existence such as has been-described might be, to
the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the
nature of things admits, to the whole sentient
creation.
Against this doctrine, however, arises another
class of objectors, who say that happiness, in any
form, cannot be the rational purpose of human
life and action; because, in the first place, it is
unattainable: and they contemptuously ask,
What right hast thou to be happy? a question
which Mr. Carlyle clenches by the addition,
What right, a short time ago, hadst thou even to
be? Next, they say, that men can do without
happiness; that all noble human beings have felt
this, and could not have become noble but by
learning the lesson of Entsagen, or renunciation;
which lesson, thoroughly learnt and submitted
to, they affirm to be the beginning and necessary
condition of all virtue.
The first of these objections would go to the
root of the matter were it well founded; for if no




30


UTILITARIANISM.


lappiness is to be had at all by human beings,
the attainment of it cannot be the end of morality, or of any rational conduct. Though, even in
that case, something might still be said for the
utilitarian theory; since utility includes not
solely the pursuit of happinesss, but the prevention or mitigation of unhappiness; and if the
former aim be chimerical, there will be all the
greater scope and more imperative need for the
latter, so long at least as mankind think fit to
live, and do not take refuge in the simultaneous
act of suicide recommended under certain conditions by Novalis. When, however, it is thus
positively asserted to be impossible that human
life should be happy, the assertion, if not something like a verbal quibble, is at least an exaggeration. If by happiness be meant a continuity
of highly pleasurable excitement, it is evident
enough that this is impossible.   A  state of
exalted pleasure lasts only moments, or in some
cases, and with some intermissions, hours or
days, and is the occasional brilliant flash of
enjoyment, not its permanent and steady flame.




UTILITARIANISM.


31


Of this the philosophers who have taught that
happiness is the end of life were as fully aware
as those who taunt them. The happiness which
they meant was not a life of rapture; but
moments of such, in an existence made up of few
and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active
over the passive, and having as the foundation of
the whole, not to expect more from life than it
is capable of bestowing. A life thus composed,
to those who have been fortunate enough to obtain it, has always appeared worthy of the name
of happiness. And such an existence is even
now the lot of many, during some considerable
portion of their lives.  The present wretched
education, and wretched social arrangements, are
the only real hindrance to its being attainable by
almost all.
The objectors perhaps nlay doubt whether
human beings, if taught to consider happiness as
the end of life, would be satisfied with such a
moderate share of it. But great numbers of
mankind have been satisfied with much less.




32


UTILITARIANISM.


The main constituents of a satisfied life appear to
be two, either of which by itself is often found
sufficient for the purpose: tranquillity, and
exci cement. With much tranquillity, many find
that they can be content with very little pleasure: with much excitement, many can reconcile
themselves to a considerable quantity of pain.
There is assuredly no inherent impossibility in
enabling even the mass of mankind to unite
both; since the two are so far from being incompatible that they are in natural alliance, the prolongation of either being a preparation for, and
exciting a wish for, the other. It is only those
in whom indolence amounts to a vice, that do
not desire excitement after an interval of repose;
it is only those in whom the need of excitement
is a disease, that feel the tranquillity which
follows excitement dull and insipid, instead of
pleasurable in direct proportion to the excitement which preceded it. When people who are
tolerably fortunate in their outward lot do not
find in life suficient enjoyment to make it valuable to them, the cause generally is, caring for




UTILITARIANISMI.


33


nobbody but themselves. To those who have
neither public nor private affections, the excitements of life are much curtailed, and in any case
dwindle in value as the time approaches when
all selfish interests must be terminated by death:
while those who leave after them objects of personal affection, and especially those who have
also cultivated a fellow-feeling with the collective interests of mankind, retain as lively an interest in life on the eve of death as in the vigor
of youth -and health. Next to selfishness, the
principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory,
is want of mental cultivation. A cultivated
mind-I do not mean that of a philosopher, but
any mind to which the fountains of knowledge
have been opened, and which has been taught. is
any tolerable degree, to exercise its facultiesfnd sources of inexhaustible interest in all that
surrounds it; in the objects of nature, the
achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry,
the incidents of history, the ways of mankind
past and present, and their prospects in the
future. It is possible, indeed, to become indifferC




34


UTILITARIANISM.


ent to all this, and that too without having
exhausted a thousandth part of it; but only
when one has had from the beginning no
moral or human interest in these things, and
has sought in them only the gratification of
curiosity.
Now there is absolutely no reason in the nature
of things why an amount of mental culture sufficient to give an intelligent interest in these
objects of contemplation, should not be the
inheritance of every one born in a civilized
country. As little is there an inherent necessity
that any human being should be a selfish egotist,
devoid of every feeling or care but those which
centre in his own miserable individuality. Something far superior to this is sufficiently common
even now, to give ample earnest of what the
human species may be made. Genuine private
affections, and a sincere interest in the public
good, are possible, though in unequal degrees, to
every rightly brought up human being. In a
world in which there is so much to interest, so
much to enjoy, and so much also to correct and




UTILITARIANISM.


35


improve, every one who has this moderate
amount of moral and intellectual requisites is
capable of an existence which may be called
enviable; and unless such a person, through bad
laws, or subjection to the will of others, is denied
the liberty to use the sources of happiness within his reach, he will not fail to find this enviable
existence, if he escape the positive evils of life,
the great sources of physical and mental suffering-such as indigence, disease, and the unkindness, worthlessness, or premature loss of objects
of affection. The main stress 'of the problem
lies, therefore, in the contest with these calamities, from which it is a rare good fortune entirely
to escape; which, as things now are, cannot be
obviated, and often cannot be in any material
degree mitigated. Yet no one whose opinion
deserves a moment's consideration can doubt
that most of the great positive evils of the world
are in themselves removable, and will, if human
affairs continue to improve, be in the end reduced
within narrow limits. Poverty, in any sense
implying suffering, may be completely extin



36


UTILITARIANISM.


guished by the wisdom of society, combined with
the good sense and providence of individluals.
Even that most intractable of enemies, disease,
may be indefinitely reduced in dimensions by
good physical and moral education, and proper
control of noxious influences; while the progress
of science holds out a promise for the future of
still more direct conquests over this detestable
foe. And every advance in that direction
relieves us from some, not only of the chances
which cut short our own lives, but, what concerns us still more, which deprives us of those in
whom our happiness is wrapt up. As for vicissitudes of fortune, and other disappointments connected with worldly circumstances, these are
principally the effect either of gross imprudence,
of ill-regulated desires, or of bad or imperfect
social institutions. All the grand sources, in
short, of human suffering are in a great degree,
many of them almost entirely, conquerable by
human care and effort; and though their removal
is grievously slow-though a long succession of
generations will perish in the breach before the




UTILITARIANISM.


37


conquest is completed, and this world becomes
all that, if will and knowledge were not wanting, it might easily be made-yet every mind
suflcicntly intelligent and generous to bear a
part, however small and unconspicuous, in the
endeavor, will draw a noble enjoyment from the
contest itself, which he would not for any bribe in
the form of selfish indulgence consent to be
without.
And this leads to the true estimation of what is
said by the objectors concerning the- possibility,
and the obligation, of learning to do without happiness. Unquestionably it is possible to do without happiness; it is done involuntarily by nineteen-twentieths of mankind, even in those parts
of our present world which are least deep
in barbarism; and it often has to be done
voluntarily by the hero or the martyr, for the
sake of something which he prizes more than his
individual happiness. But this something, what
is it, unless the happiness of others, or some of
the requisites of happiness? It is noble to be
capable of resigning entirely one's own portion




38


UTILITARIANISM,


of happiness, or chances of it; but, after all, this
self-sacrifice must be for some end; it is not its
own end; and if we are told that its end is not
happiness, but virtue, which is better than happiness, I ask, would the sacrifice be made if the
hero or martyr did not believe that it would earn
for others immunity from similar sacrifices?
Would it be made, if he thought that his renunciation of happiness for himself would produce
no fruit for any of his fellow creatures, but to
make their lot like his, and place them also in
the condition of persons who have renounced
happiness? All honor to those who can abnegate
for themselves the personal enjoyment of life,
when by such renunciation they contribute
worthily to increase the amount of happiness in
the world; but he who does it, or professes to
do it, for any other purpose, is no more deserving
of admiration than the ascetic mounted on his
pillar. He may be an inspiriting proof of what
men can do, but assuredly not an example of
what they should.
Though it is only in a very imperfect state of




UTILITARIANISM.


39


the world's arrangements that any one can best
serve the happiness of others by the absolute
sacrifice of his own, yet so long as the world is
in that imperfect state, I fully acknowledge that
the readiness to make such a sacrifice is the
highest virtue which can be found in man. I
will add, that in this condition of the world,
paradoxical as the assertion may be, the conscious ability to do without happiness gives the
best prospect of realizing such happiness as is
attainable. For nothing except that consciousness can raise a person above the chances of life,
by making him feel that, let fate and fortune do
their worst, they have not power to subdue him:
which, once felt, frees him from excess of anxiety
concerning the evils of life, and enables him, like
many a Stoic in the worst times of the Roman
Empire, to cultivate in tranquillity the sources
of satisfaction accessible to him, without concerning himself about the uncertainty of their
duration, any more than about their inevitable
end.
Meanwhile, let utilitarians never cease to claim




40


UTILITARIANISM.


the morality of self-devotion as a possession
which belongs by as good a right to them, as
either to the Stoic or to the Transcendentalist.
The utilitarian morality does recognise in human
beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses
to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good.  A
sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as
wasted. The only self-renunciation which it
applauds, is devotion to the happiness, or to
some of the means of happiness, of others; either
of mankind collectively, or of individuals within
the limits imposed by the collective interests of
mankind.
I must again repeat what the assailants of
utilitarianism seldom have the justice to acknowledge, that the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is
not the agent's own happiness, but that of all
concerned. As between his own happiness and
that of others, utilitarianism requires him to
be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and




UTILTTARIANISM.


41


benevolent spectator.  In the golden rule ot
Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit
of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be
done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneself,
constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian
morality. As the means of making the nearest
approach to this ideal, utility would enjoin, first,
that laws and social arrangements should place
the happiness, or (as speaking practically it may
be called) the interest of every individual, as
nearly as possible in harmony with the interest
of the whole; and secondly, that education and
opinion, which have so vast a power over human
character, should so use that power as to establish in the mind of every individual an indissoluble association between his own happiness
and the good of the whole; especially between
his own happiness and the practice of such
modes of conduct, negative and positive, as
regard for the universal happiness prescribes:
so that not only he may be unable to conceive
the possibility of happiness to himself, consistently with conduct opposed to the general good,




42


UTILITARIANISM.


but also that a direct impulse to promote the
general good may be in every individual one of
the habitual motives of action, and the sentiments
connected therewith may fill a large and prominent place in every human being's sentient
existence. If the impugners of the utilitarian
morality represented it to their own minds in this
its true character, I know not what recommendation possessed by any other morality they could
possibly affirm to be wanting to it: what more
beautiful or more exalted developments of human
nature any other ethical system can be supposed
to foster, or what springs of action, not accessible
to the utilitarian, such systems rely on for giving
effect to their mandates.
The objectors to utilitarianism cannot always
be charged with representing it in a discreditable
light. On the contrary, those among them who
entertain anything like a just idea of its disinterested character, sometimes find fault with its
standard as being too high for humanity. They
say it is exacting too much to require that people
shall always act from tihe inducement of pro



UTILITARIANISM.


moting the general interests of society.  But
this is to mistake the very meaning of a standard of morals, and to confound the rule of action
with the motive of it. It is the business of
ethics to tell us what are our duties, or by what
test we may know them; but no system of ethics
requires that the sole motive of all we do shall
be a feeling of duty; on the contrary, ninetynine hundredths of all our actions are done from
other motives, and rightly so done, if the rule of
duty does not condemn them. It is the more
unjust to utilitarianism that this particular misapprehension should be made a ground of objection to it, inasmuch as utilitarian moralists have
gone beyond almost all others in affirming that the
motive has nothing to do with the morality of
the action, though much with the worth of the
agent. He who saves a fellow creature from
drowning does what is morally right, whether
his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for
his~rouble: he who betrays the friend that trusts
him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to
serve another friend to whom he is under greater




UTILITARIANISM.


obligations.* But to speak only of actions done
* An opponent, whose intellectual and moral fairness it is a
pleasure to acknowledge (the Rev. J. Llewellyn Davis) has
objected to this passage, saying, "Surely the rightness or
wrongness of saving a man from drowning does depend very
mucli upon the motive with which it is done. Suppose that a
tyrant, when his enemy jumped into the sea to escape from
him, saved him from drowning simply in order that he might
inflict upon him more exquisite tortures, would it tend to
clearness to speak of that rescue as 'a morally right action?'
Or suppose again, according to one of the stock illustrations
of ethical inquiries, that a man betrayed a trust received from
a friend, because the discharge of it would fatally injure that
friend himself or some one belonging to him, would utilitar;anism compel one to call the betrayal 'a crime' as much as if
it had been done from the meanest motive?"
I submit, that he who saves another from drowning in order
to kill him by torture afterwards, does not differ only in
motive from him who does the same thing from duty or benevolence; the act itself is different. The rescue of the man is,
in the case supposed, only the necessary first step of an act
far more atrocious than leaving him to drown would have
been. Had Mr. Davis said, " The rightness or wrongness of
saving a man from drowning does depend very much "-not
upon the motive, but-"upon the intention," no utilitarian
would have differed from him. Mr. Davis, by an oversight
too common not to be quite venial, has in this case confounded
the very different ideas of Motive and Intention. There is no
point which utilitarian thinkers (and Bentham pre-eminently)
have taken more pains to illustrate than this. The morality
of the action depends entirely upon the intention-that is,
upon what the agent wills to do. But the motive, that is, the
feeling which makes him will so to do, when it makes no
difference in the act, makes none in the morality: though it
makes a great difference in our moral estimation of the agent,
especially if it indicates a good or a bad habitual dispositiona bent of character from which useful, or from which hurtful
actions are likely to arise.




UTILITARIANISM.


45


from the motive of duty, and in direct obedience
to principle: it is a misapprehension of the
utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive it as
implying that people should fix their minds upon
so wide a generality as the world or society at
large. The great majority of good actions are
intended, not for the benefit of the world, but
for that of individuals, of which the good of the
world is made up; and the thoughts of the most
virtuous man need not on these occasions travel
beyond the particular persons concerned, except
so far as is necessary to assure himself that in
benefiting them he is not violating the rightsthat is, the legitimate and authorized expectations-of any one else.  The multiplication of
happiness is, according to the utilitarian ethics,
the object of virtue: the occasions on which any
person (except one in a thousand) has it in his
power to do this on an extended scale, in other
words, to be a public benefactor, are but exceptional; and on these occasions alone is he called
on to consider public utility; in every other
case, private utility, the interest or happiness of




46


UTILITARIANISM.


some few persons, is all he has to attend to.
Those alone the influence of whose actions extends to society in general, need concern themselves habitually about so large an object  In
the case of abstinences indeed-of things which
people forbear to do, from moral considerations,
though the consequences in the particular case
might be beneficial-it would be unworthy of an
intelligent agent not to be consciously aware that
the action is of a class which, if practised generally, would be generally injurious, and that
this is the ground of the obligation to abstain
from it. The amount of regard for the public
interest implied in this recognition, is no greater
than is demanded by every system of morals;
for they all enjoin to abstain from whatever is
manifestly pernicious to society.
The same considerations dispose of another
reproach against the doctrine of utility, founded
on a still grosser misconception of the purpose
of a standard of morality, and of the very meaning of the words right and wrong. It is often
affirmed that utilitarianism  renders men cold




UTILITARIANISM.


47


and unsympathizing; that it chills their moral
feelings towards'individuals; that it makes them
regard only the dry and hard consideration of
the consequences of actions, not taking into their
moral estimate the qualities from which those
actions emanate. If the assertion means that
they do not allow their judgement respecting
the rightness or wrongness of an action to be
influenced by their opinion of the qualities of
the person who does it, this is a complaint not
against utilitarianism, but against having any
standard of morality at all; for certainly no
known ethical standard decides an action to be,god or bad because it is done by a good or a
bad man, still less because done by an amiable,
a brave, or a benevolent man, or the contrary.
These considerations are relevant, not to the
estimation of actions, but of persons; and there
is nothing in the utilitarian theory inconsistent
with the fact that there are other things which
interest us in persons besides the rightness and
wrongness of their actions. The Stoics, indeed,
with the paradoxical misuse of language which




48


UTILITARIANISM.


was part of their system, and by which they
strove to raise themselves above all concern
about anything but virtue, were fond of saying
that he who has that has everything; that he,
and only he, is rich, is beautiful, is a king. But
no claim of this description is made for the
virtuous man by the utilitarian doctrine. Utilitarians are quite aware that there are other
desirable possessions and qualities besides virtue,
and are perfectly willing to allow to all of them
their full worth. They are also aware that a
right action does not necessarily indicate a
virtuous character, and that actions which are
blamable often proceed from qualities entitled
to praise. When this is apparent in any particular case, it modifies their estimation, not
certainly of the act, but of the agent. I grant
that they are, notwithstanding, of opinion, that
in the long run the best proof of a good character
is good actions; and resolutely refuse to consider
any mental disposition as good, of which the
predominant tendency is to produce bad conduct.
Tli', makes them unpopular with many people;




UTILITARIANISM.


49


but it is an unpopularity which they must share
with every one who regards the distinction
between right and wrong in a serious light
and the reproach is not one which a conscientious
utilitarian need be anxious to repel.
If no more be meant by the objection than that
many utilitarians look on the morality of actions,
as measured by the utilitarian standard, with
too exclusive a regard, and do not lay sufficient
stress upon the other beauties of character which
go towards making a human being loveable or
admirable, this may be admitted. Utilitarians
who have cultivated their moral feelings, but
not their sympathies nor their artistic perceptions, do fall into this mistake; and so do all
other moralists under the same conditions. What
can be said in excuse for other moralists is
equally available for them, namely, that if there
is to be any error, it is better that it should be
on that side. As a matter of fact, we may affirm
that among utilitarians as among adherents of
other  systems, there   is  every-:imaginable
degree of rigidity and of laxity in the applicaD




.0
D


UTILITARIANISM.


tion of their standard: some are even puritanically rigorous, while others are as indulgent as
can possibly be desired by either sinner or by
sentimentalist.  But on the whole, a doctrine
which brings prominently forward the interest
that mankind have in the repression and prevention of conduct which violates the moral
law, is likely to be inferior to no other in turning
the sanctions of opinion against such violations.
It is true, the question, What does violate the
moral law? is one of which those who recognise
different standards of morality are likely now
and then to differ. But difference of opinion on
moral questions was not first introduced into
the world by utilitarianism, while that doctrine
does supply, if not always an easy, at all events
a tangible and intelligible mode of deciding
such differences.
of         It may not be superfluous to notice a few
more of the common misapprehensions of
utilitarian ethics, even those which are so
obvious and gross that it might appear impossible
for any person of candor and intelligence to fall




UTILITARIANISM.


51


into them: since persons, even of considerable
mental endowments, often give themselveq so
little trouble to understand the bearings of any
opinion against which they entertain a prejudice,
and men are in general so little conscious of this
voluntary ignorance as a defect, that the vulgarest misunderstandings of ethical doctrines are
continually met with in the deliberate writings
of persons of the greatest pretensions both to
high principle and to philosophy. We not uncommonly hear the doctrine of utility inveighed
against as a godless doctrine. If it be necessary
to say anything at all against so mere an assumption, we may say that the question depends upon
what idea we have formed of the moral character
of the Deity. If it be a true belief that God
desires, above all things, the happiness of his
creatures, and that this was his purpose in their
creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine,
but more profoundly religious than any other.
If it be meant that utilitarianism does not
recognise the revealed will of God as the supreme
law of morals, I answer, that an utilitarian who




52


UTILITARIANISM.


believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of
God, necessarily believes that whatever God has
thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals,
must fulfil the requirements of utility in a
supreme degree. But others besides utilitarians
have been of opinion that the Christian revelation was intended, and is fitted, to inform the
hearts and minds of mankind with a spirit which
should enable them to find for themselves what
is right, and incline them to do it when found.
rather than to tell them, except in a very general
way, what it is: and that we need a doctrine of
ethics, carefully followed out, to interpret to us
the will of God. Whether this opinion is correct
or not, it is superfluous here to discuss; since
whatever aid religion, either natural or revealed,
can afford to ethical investigation, is as open to
the utilitarian moralist as to any other. He can
use it as the testimony of God to the usefulness
or hurtfulness of any given course of action, by
as good a right as others can use it for the
indication of a transcendental law, having no
connexion with usefulness or with happiness.




UTILITARIANISM.


53


Again, Utility is often summarily stigmatized
as an immoral doctrine by giving it the name
of Expediency, and taking advantage of the
popular use of that term to contrast it
with Principle.  But the Expedient in the
sense in which it is opposed to the Right,
generally means that which is expedient
for the particular interest of the agent him-.
self; as when a minister sacrifices the
interest of his country to keep himself in
place.  When it means anything better than
this, it means that which is expedient for some
immediate object, some temporary purpose, but
which violates a rule whose observance is expepient in a much higher degree. The Expedient,
in this sense, instead of being the same thing with
the useful, is a branch of the hurtful. Thus, it
would often be expedient, for the purpose of getting over some momentary embarrassment, or
attaining some object immediately useful to ourselves or others, to tell a lie. But inasmuch as the
cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on
the subject of veracity, is one of the most useful,




54


UTILITARIANISM.


and the enfeeblement of that feeling one of the most
hurtful, things to which our conduct can be instrumental; and inasmuch as any, even unintentional, deviation from truth, does that much
towards weakening the trustworthiness of human
assertion, which is not only the principal suppoi t
of all present social well-being, but the insufficiency of which does more than any one thing
that can be named to keep back civilisation,
virtue, everything on which human happiness on
the largest scale depends; we feel that the vi(,)lation, for a present advantage, of a rule of such
transcendent expediency, is not expedient, and
that he who, for the sake of a convenience to
himself or to some other individual, does what
depends on him to deprive mankind of the good,
and inflict upon them the evil, involved in the
greater or less reliance which they can place in
each other's word, acts the part of one of their
worst enemies. Yet that even this rule, sacred
as it is, admits of possible exceptions, is acknowledged by all moralists; the chief of which is
when the withholding of some fact (as of infor



UTILITARIANISM.


mation from a malefactor, or of bad news from a
person dangerously ill) would preserve some one
(especially a person other than oneself) from great
and unmerited evil, and when the withholding
can only be effected by denial. But in 6rder that
the exception may not extend itself beyond the
need, and may have the least possible effect in
weakening reliance on veracity, it ought to be
recognised, and, if possible, its limits defined;
and if the principle of utility is good for anything, it must be good for weighing these conflicting utilities against one another, and marking
out the region within which one or the other
preponderates.
Again, defenders of utility often find themselves called upon to reply to such objections as
this-that there is not time, previous to action,
for calculating and weighing the effects of any
line of conduct on the general happiness. This
is exactly as if any one were to say that it is
impossible to guide our conduct by Christianity,
because there is not time, on every occasion on
which anything has to be done, to read through




UTILITARIANISM.


the Old and New Testaments. The answer to
the objection is, that there has been ample time,
namely, the whole past duration of the human
species. During all that time mankind have been
learning by experience the tendencies of actions;
on which experience all the prudence, as well as
all the morality of life, is dependent. People talk
as if the commencement of this course of experience had hitherto been put off, and as if, at the
moment when some man feels tempted to meddle
with the property or life of another, he had to
begin considering for the first time whether
murder and theft are injurious to human happiness. Even then I do not think that he would
find the question very puzzling; but, at all events,
the matter is now done to his hand. It is truly
a whimsical supposition, that if mankind were
agreed in considering utility to be the test of
morality, they would remain without any agreement as to what is useful, and would take no
measures for having their notions on the subject
taught to the young, and enforced by law and
opinion. There is no difficulty in proving any




UTILITARIANISM.


57


ethical standard whatever to work ill, if we suppose universal idiocy to be conjoined with it, but
on any hypothesis short of that, mankind must
by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to
the effects of some actions on their happiness;
and the beliefs which have thus come down are
the rules of morality for the multitude, and for
the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding
better. That philosophers might easily do this,
even now, on many subjects; that the received
code of ethics is by no means of divine right;
and that mankind have still much to learn as to
the effects of actions on the general happiness, I
admit, or rather, earnestly maintain. The corollaries from the principle of utility, like the precepts of every practical art, admit of indefinite
improvement, and, in a progressive state of the
human mind, their improvement is perpetually
going on. But to consider the rules of morality
as improvable, is one thing; to pass over the
intermediate generalizations entirely, and endeavor to test each individual action directly by
the first principle is another. It is a strange




58


UTILITARIANISY


notion that the acknowledgment of a first principle is inconsistent with the admission of secondary
ones. To inform a traveller respecting the place
of his ultimate destination, is not to forbid the
use of land-marks and direction-posts on the way.
The proposition that happiness is the end and
aim of morality, does not mean that no road
ought to be laid down to that goal, or that persons going thither should not be advised to take
one direction rather than another. Men really
ought to leave off talking a kind of nonsense on
this subject, which they would neither talk nor
listen to on other matters of practical concernment. Nobody argues that the art of navigation
is not founded on astronomy, because sailors
cannot wait to calculate the Nautical Almanack.
Being rational creatures, they go to sea with it
ready calculated; and all rational creatures go
out upon the sea of life with their minds made
up on the common questions of right and wrong,
as well as on many of the far more difficult
questions of wise and foolish. And this, as long
as foresight is a human quality, it is to be pre



UTILITARIANISM.


sumed they will continue to do. Whatever we
adopt as the fundamental principle of morality,
we require subordinate principles to apply it by:
the impossibility of doing without them, being
common to all systems, can afford no argument
against any one in particular: but gravely to
argue as if no such secondary principles could
be had, and as if mankind had remained till nov,
and always must remain, without drawing any
general conclusions from the experience of
human life, is as high a pitch, I think, as
absurdity has ever reached in philosophical
controversy.
The remainder of the stock arguments against
utilitarianism mostly consist in laying to its
charge the common infirmities of human nature,
and the general difficulties which embarrass conscientious persons in shaping their course through
life. We are told that an utilitarian will be apt
to make his own particular case an exception to
moral rules, and, when under temptation, will see
an utility in the breach of a rule, greater than he
will see in its observance. But is utility the




60


UTIITARIANISM.


only creed which is able to furnish us with
excuses for evil doing, and means of cheating our
own conscience?  They are afforded in almbunlance by all doctrines which recognize as a fact
in morals the existence of conflicting consiierations; which all doctrines do, that have been
believed by sane persons. It is not the fault of
any creed, but of the complicated   nature of
human affairs, that rules of conduct cannot be so
framed as to require no exceptions, and that
hardly any kind of action can safely be laid
down as either always obligatory or always condemnable. There is no ethical creed which does
not temper the rigidity of its laws, by giving a
certain latitude, under the moral responsibility
of the agent, for accommodation to peculiarities
of circumstances; and under every creed, at the
opening thus made, self-deception and dishonest
casuistry get in. There exists no moral system
under which there do not arise unequivocal cases
of conflicting obligation. These are the real
difficulties, the knotty points both in the theory
of ethics, and in the conscientious guidance of




UTILITARIANISMI.


61


personal conduct. They are overcome practically
with greater or with less success according to the
intellect and virtue of the individual; but it can
hardly be pretended that any one will be the less
qualified for dealing with them, from possessing
an ultimate standard to which conflicting rights
and duties can be referred. If utility is the ultimate source of moral obligations, utility may be
invoked to decide between them when their
demands are incompatible. Though the application of the standard may be difficult, it is better
than none at all: while in other systems, the
moral laws all claiming independent authority,
there is no common umpire entitled to interfere
between them; their claims to precedence one
over another rest on little better than sophistry,
and unless determined, as they generally are, by
the unacknowledged influence of considerations
of utility, afford a free scope for the action of
personal desires  and partialities.  We must
remember that only in these cases of conflict
between secondary principles is it requisite that
first principles should be appealed to. There is




3J2            UTILITARIANISM.
no case of moral obligation in which some secondary principle is not involved; and if only one,
there can seldom be any real doubt which one it
is, in the mind of any person by whom the principle itself is recognised




UTILITARIANISM.


63


CHAPTER III.              re.,
OF THE ULTIMATE SA     N     OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF UTILITY.
T   HE question is often asked, and properly so,
in regard to any supposed moral standard
-What is its sanction? what are the motives to
obey it? or more specifically, what is the source
of its obligation? whence does it derive its binding force? It is a necessary part of moral philosophy to provide the answer to this question;
which, though frequently assuming the shape of
an objection to the utilitarian morality, as if it
had some special applicability to that above
others, really arises in regard to all standards.
It arises, in fact, whenever a person is called on
to adopt a standard or refer morality to any
basis on which he has not been accustomed to
rest it. For the customary morality, that which
education and opinion have consecrated, is the
only one which presents itself to the mind with




64             UTILITARIANISM.
the feeling of being in itself obligatory; and
when a person is asked to believe that this
morality derives its obligation from some general
principle round which custom has not thrown the
same halo. the assertion is to him a paradox;
the supposed corollaries seem to have a more
binding force than the original theorem; the
superstructure seems to stand better without,
than with, what is represented as its foundation.
He says to himself, I feel that I am bound not to
rob or murder, betray or deceive; but why
am I bound to promote the general happiness? If my own happiness lies in something else, why may I not give that the preference?
If the view adopted by the utilitarian philosophy of the nature of the moral sense be correct,
this difficulty will always present itself, until the
influences which form   moral character have
taken the same hold of the principle which they
have taken of some of the consequences-until,:by the imnprovement of education, the feeling of
Enity with our fellow creatures shall be (what it




UTILITARIANISM.            6
cannot be doubted that Christ intended it to be)
as deeply rooted in our character, and to our own
consciousness as completely a part of our nature,
as the horror of crime is in an ordinarily wellbrought-up young person.   In/the mean time,
however, the difficulty has no peculiar application to the doctrine of utility, but is inherent in
every attempt to analyse morality and reduce it
to principles; which, unless the principle is
already in men's minds invested with as much
sacredness as any of its applications, always
seems to divest them of a part of their sanctity.
The principle of utility either has, or there is
no reason why it might not have, all the sanctions
which belong to any other system of morals.
Those sanctions are either external or internal.
Of the external sanctions it is not necessary to
speak at any length. They are, the hope of favor
and the fear of displeasure from our fellow creatures or from the Ruler of the Universe, along
with whatever we may have of sympathy or
affection for them or of love and awe of Him,
inclining us to do His will independently of




66


IUTILITARIANISM.


selfish consequences.  There is evidently no
reason why all these motives for observance
should not attach themselves to the utilitarian
morality, as completely and as powerfully as
any other. Indeed, those of them which refer to
our fellow creatures are sure to do so, in proportion to the amount of general intelligence; for
whether there be any other ground of moral
obligation than the general happiness or not,
men do desire happiness; and however imperfect
may be their own practice, they desire and commend all conduct in others towards themselves,
by which they think their happiness is promoted.
With regard to the religious motive, if men believe, as most profess to do, in the goodness of
God, those who think that conduciveness to the
general happiness is the essence, or even only the
criterion, of good, must necessarily believe that
it is also that which God approves. The whole
force therefore of external reward and punishment, whether physical or moral, and whether
proceeding from God or from our fellow men,
together with all that the capacities of human




UTILITARIANISM.


67


nature admit, of disinterested devotion to either,
become   available to  enforce the  utilitarian
morality, in proportion as that morality is recognized; and the more powerfully, the more the
appliances of education and general cultivation
are bent to the purpose.
So far as to external sanctions. The internal
sanction of duty, whatever our standard of duty
may be, is one and the same-a feeling in our
own mind; a pain, more or less intense, attendant on violation of duty, which in properlycultivated moral natures rises, in the more serious
cases, into shrinking from it as an impossibility.
This feeling, when disinterested, and connecting
itself with the pure idea of duty, and not with
some particular form of it, or with any of the
merely accessory circumstances, is the essence of
Conscience; though in that complex phenomenon
as it actually exists, the simple fact is in general
all encrusted over with collateral associations,
derived from sympathy, from love, and still more
from fear; from all the forms of religious feeling; from the recollections of childhood and of




68


UTILITARIANISM.


all our past life; from self-esteem, desire of the
esteem of others, and occasionally even selfabasement. This extreme complication is, I apprehlend, the origin of the sort of mystical character,
whicl, by a tendency of the human mind of
wlich there are many other examples, is apt to
be attributed to the idea of moral obligation,
and which leads people to believe that the idea
cannot possibly attach itself to any other objects
than those which, by a supposed mysterious law,
are found in our present experience to excite it.
Its binding force, however, consists in the existence of a mass of feeling which must be broken
through in order to do what violates our standard
of right, and which, if we do nevertheless violate
that standard, will probably have to be encountered afterwards in the form of remorse. Whatever theory we have of the nature or origin of
conscience, this is what essentially constitutes it.
The ultimate sanction, therefore, of all morality
(external motives apart) being a subjective feeling in our own minds, I see nothing embarrassing to those whose standard is utility, in the




UTILITARIANISM.


69


question, what is the sanction of that particular standard? We may answer, the same
as of all other moral standards-the conscientious feelings of mankind. Undoubtedly this
sanction has no binding efficacy on those who
do not possess feelings it appeals to; but neither
will these persons be more obedient to any other
moral principle than to the utilitarian one.
On them morality of any kind has no hold but
through the external sanctions. Meanwhile the
feelings exist, a fact in human nature, the reality
of which, and the great power with which they
are capable of acting on those in whom they
have been duly cultivated, are proved by experience. No reason has ever been shown why
they may not be cultivated to as great intensity
in connection with the utilitarian, as with any
other rule of morals.
There is, I am aware, a disposition to believe
that a person who sees in moral obligation a
transcendental fact, an objective reality belonging to the province of 'Things in themselves,' is
likely to be more obedient to it than one who




70


UTILITARIANISM.


believes it to be entirely subjective, having its
seat in human consciousness only. But whatever
a person's opinion may be on this point of Ontology, the force he is really urged by is his own
subjective feeling, and is exactly measured by its
strength. No one's belief that Duty is an objective reality is stronger than the belief that God is
so; yet the belief in God, apart from the expectation of actual rewardandpunishment,only operates
on conduct through, and in proportion to, the subjective religious feeling.  The sanction, so far
as it is disinterested, is always in the mind itself;
and the notion, therefore, of the transcendental
moralists must be, that this sanction will not
exist in the mind unless it is believed to have its
root out of the mind; and that if a person is able
to say to himself, That which is restraining me,
and which is called my conscience, is only a
feeli  in my own mind, he may possibly draw
the conclusion that when the feeling ceases the
obligation ceases, and that if he find the feeling
inconvenient, he may disregard it, and endeavor
to get rid of it. But is this danger confined to-:




UTILITARIANISM,


71


the utilitarian morality? Does the belief that
moral obligation has its seat outside the mind
make the feeling of it too strong to be got rid
of?   The fact is so far otherwise, that all
moralists admit and lament the ease with which,
in the generality of minds, conscience can be
silenced or stifled. The question, Need I obey
my conscience? is quite as often put to themselves by persons Who never heard of the
principle of utility, as by its adherents. Those
whose conscientious feelings are so weak as to
allow of their asking this question, if they
answer it affirmatively, will not do so because
they believe in the transcedental theory, but
because of the external sanctions.
It is not necessary, for the present purpose,
to decide whether the feeling of duty is innate
or implanted. Assuming it to be innate, it is an
open question to what object it naturally attaches
itself; for the philosophic supporters of that
theory are now agreed that the intuitive perception is of principles of morality, and not of
the details.  If there be anything innate in




72


UTILITARIANISM.


the matter, I see no reason why the feeling
which is innate should not be that of regard to
the pleasures and pains of others. If there is
any  principle of morals which is intuitively
obligatory, I should say it must be that. If so,
the intuitive ethics would coincide with the
utilitarian, and there would be no further quarrel
between them.    Even as it is, the intuitive
moralists, though they believe that there are
other intuitive moral obligations, do already believe this to be one; for they unanimously hold
that a large portion of morality turns upon the
consideration due to the interests of our fellow
creatures. Therefore, if the belief in the transcendental origin of moral obligation gives any
additional efficacy to the internal sanction, it
appears to me that the utilitarian principle has
already the benefit of it.
On the other hand, if, as is my own belief, the
moral feelings are not innate, but acquired, they
are not for that reason the less natural. It is
natural to man to speak, to reason, to build cities,
to cultivate the ground, though these are ac



UTILITARIANISM.


73


quired faculties.  The moral feelings are not
indeed a part of our nature, in the sense of being
in any perceptible degree present in all of us;
but this, unhappily, is a fact admitted by those
who believe the most strenuously in their transcendental origin. Like the other acquired capacities above referred to, the moral faculty, if not
a part of our nature, is a natural outgrowth from
it; capable, like them, in a certain small degree,
of springing up spontaneously; and susceptible
of being brought by cultivation to a high degree
of development. Unhappily it is also susceptible,
by a sufficient use of the external sanctions and
of the force of early impressions, of being cultivated in almost any direction: so that there is
hardly anything so absurd or so mischievous that
it may not, by means of these influences, be made
to act on the human mind with all the authority
of conscience. To doubt that the same potency
might be given by the same means to the principle of utility, even if it had no foundation in
human nature, would be flying in the face of all
experience.




74


UTILITARIANISM.


But moral associations which are wholly of
artificial creation, when intellectual culture goes
on, yield by degrees to the dissolving force of
analysis: and if the feeling of duty, when associated with utility, would appear equally arbitrary; if there were no leading department of our
nature, no powerful class of sentiments, with
which that association would harmonize, which
would make us feel it congenial, and incline us
not only to foster it in others (for which we have
abundant interested motives), but also to cherish
it in ourselves; if there were not, in short, a
natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality, it might well happen that this association
also, even after it had been implanted by education, might be analysed away.
But there is this basis of powerful natural
sentiment; and this it is which, when once the
general happiness is recognized as the ethical
standard, will constitute the strength of the utilitarian morality. This firm foundation is that of
the social feelings of mankind; the desire to be
in unity with our fellow   creatures, which is




UTILITARIANISM.


75


already a powerful principle in human nature,
and happily one of those which tend to become
stronger, even without express inculcation, from
the influences of advancing civilization. The
social state is at once so natural, and so necessary, and so habitual to man, that except in
some unusual circumstances or by an effort of
voluntary abstraction, he never conceives himself otherwise than as a member of a body;
and this association is riveted more and more,
as mankind are further removed from the state
of savage independence. Any condition, therefore, which is essential to a state of society,
becomes more and more an inseparable part of
every person's conception of the state of things
which he is born into, and which is the destiny
of a human being. Now, society between human
beings, except in the relation of master and slave,
is manifestly impossible on any other footing
than that the interests of all are to be consulted.
Society between equals can only exist on the
understanding that the interests of all are to be
regarded equally. And since in all states of




76


UTILITARIANISM.


civilization, every person, except an absolute
monarch, has equals, every one is obliged to live
on these terms with somebody; and in every age
Fsome advance is made towards a state in which
it will be impossible to live permanently on other
terms with anybody. In this way people grow
up unable to conceive as possible to them a state
of total disregard oF other people's interests.
They are under a necessity of conceiving themselves as at least abstaining from all the grosser
injuries, and (if only for their own protection)
living in a state of constant protest against them.
They are also familiar with the fact of co-operating with others, and proposing to themselves a
collective, not an individual, interest, as the aim
(at least for the time being) of their actions. So
long as they are co-operating, their ends are
identified with those of others; there is at least
a temporary feeling that the interests of others
are their own interests.    Not only does all
strengthening of social ties, and    all healthy
growth of society, give to each individual a
stronger personal interest in practically consult



UTILITARIANISM.            77


77


ing the velfare of others; it also leads him to
identify his feelings more and more with their
good, or at least with an ever greater degree of
practical consideration for it.  He comes, as
though instinctively, to be conscious of himself
as a being who of course pays regard to others.
The good of others becomes to him a thing naturally and necessarily to be attended to, like any
of the physical conditions of our existence. Now,
whatever amount of this feeling a person has, he
is urged by the strongest motives both of interest and of sympathy to demonstrate it, and to
the utmost of his power encourage it in others;
and even if he has none of it himself, he is as
greatly interested as any one else that others
should have it. Consequently, the smallest germs
of the feeling are laid hold of and nourished by
the contagion of sympathy and the influences of
education; and a complete web of corroborative
association is woven round it, by the powerful
agency of the external sanctions. This mode of
conceiving ourselves and human life, as civilization goes on, is felt to be more and more natural.




78


UTILITARIANISM.


Every step in political improvement renders it
more so, by removing the sources of opposition
of interest and levelling those inequalities of
legal privilege between individuals or classes,
owing to which there are large portions of mankind whose happiness it is still practicable to disregard. In an improving state of the human mind,
the influences are constantly on the increase,which
tend to generate in each individual a feeling of
unity with all the rest; which feeling, if perfect,
would make him never think of, or desire, any
beneficial condition for himself, in the benefits of
which they are not included. If we now suppose
this feeling of unity to be taught as a religion, and
the whole force of education, of institutions, and
of opinion, directed, as it once was in the case of
religion, to make every person grow up from
infancy surrounded on all sides both by the profession and by the practice of it, I think that no
one, who can realize this conception, will feel any
misgiving about the sufficiency of the ultimate
sanction for the Happiness morality.  To any
ethical student who finds the realization difficult




UTILITAIII A N ISM.7


79


I recommend, as a means of facilitating it, the
second of M. Conmte's two principal works, the
Systgme de Politique Positive. I entertain the
strongest objections to the system of politics and
morals set forth in that treatise; but I think it
has superabundantly shown the possibility of
giving to the service of humanity, even without
the aid of belief in a Providence, both the physical power and the social efficacy of a religion;
making it take hold of human life, and color all
thought, feeling, and action, in a manner of which
the greatest ascendency ever exercised by any
religion may be but a type and foretaste; and of
which the danger is, not that it should be insufficient, but that it should be so excessive as to
interfere unduly with human freedom and individuality.
Neither is it necessary to the feeling which
constitutes the binding force of the utilitarian
morality on those who recognize it, to wait for
those social influences which would make its
obligation felt by mankind at large. In the
comparatively early state of human advancement




UTILITARIANISM.


iD which we now live, a person cannot indeed
feel that entireness of sympathy with all others,
which would make any real discordance in the
general direction of their conduct in life impossible; but already a person in whom the social
feeling is at all developed, cannot bring himself
to think of the rest of his fellow creatures as
struggling rivals with him for the means of
happiness, whom he must desire to see defeated
in their object in order that he may succeed in
his. The deeply-rooted conception which every
individual even now has of himself as a social
being, tends to make him feel it one of his
natural wants that there should be harmony
between his feelings and aims and those of his
fellow creatures. If differences of opinion and of
mental culture make it impossible for him to
share many of their actual feelings-perhaps
make him denounce and defy those feelings-he
still needs to be conscious that his real aim and
theirs do not conflict; that he is not opposing
himself to what they really wish for, namely,
their own good, but is, on the contrary, promot



UTILITARIANISM.


81


ing it. This feeling in most individuals is much
inferior in strength to their selfish feelings, and
is often wanting altogether. But to those who
have it, it possesses all the characters of a natural
feeling. It does not present itself to their minds
as a superstition of education, or a law despotically imposed by the power of society, but as an
attribute which it would not be well for them to
be without. This conviction is the ultimate
sanction of the greatest-happiness morality.
This it is which makes any mind, of well-developed feelings, work with, and not against, the
outward motives to care for others, afforded by
what I have called the external sanctions; and
when those sanctions are wanting, or act in an
opposite direction, constitutes in itself a powerful
internal binding force, in proportion to the sensitiveness and thoughtfulness of the character;
since few but those whose mind is a moral
blank, could bear to lay out their course of
life on the plan of paying no regard to others
except so far as their own private interest
compels.
F




82


UTILITARIANISM


CHAPTER IV.
OF WHAT SORT OF PROOF THE PRINCIPLE OF
UTILITY IS SUSCEPTIBLE.
IT has already been remarked, that questions
of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in
the ordinary acceptation of the term. To be
incapable of proof by reasoning is common to all
first principles; to the first premises of our
knowledge, as well as to those of our conduct.
But the former, being matters of fact, may be
the subject of a direct appeal to the faculties
which judge of fact-namely our senses, and our
internal consciousness. Can an appeal be made
to the same faculties on questions of practical
ends? Or by what other faculty is congizance
taken of them?
Questions about ends are, in other words,
questions what things are desirable. The utilitarian doctrine is, that happiness is desirable,
mnd the only thing desirable, as an end; all




UTILITARIANISM.,


83


other things being only desirable as means to that
end. What ought to be required of this doctrine
-what conditions is it requisite that the doctrine
should fulfil-to make ge.i   its claim to be
believed?
The only proof capable of being given that
an object is visible, is that people actually see it.
The only proof that a sound is audible, is that
people hear it: and so of the other sources of
our experience. In like manner, I apprehend,
the sole evidence it is possible to produce that
anything is desirable, is that people do actually
desire it.  If the end which the utilitarian
doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory
and in practice, acknowledged to be an end,
nothing could ever convince any person that it was
so. No reason can be given why the general
happiness is desirable, except that each person,
so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires
his own happiness. This, however, being a fact,
we have not only all the proof which the case
admits of, but all which it is possible to require,
that happiness is a good. that each person'*




84


UTILITARIANISM.


happiness is a good to that person, and the
general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. Happiness has made out its
title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of the criteria of morality.
But it has not, by this alone, proved itself to
be the sole criterion. To do that, it would seem,
by the same rule, necessary to show, not only
that people desire happiness, but that they never
desire anything else. Now it is palpable that
they do desire things which, in common language, are decidedly distinguished from happiness. They desire, for example, virtue, and the
absence of vice, no less really than pleasure and
the absence of pain. The desire of virtue is not
as universal, but it is as authentic a fact, as the
desire of happiness. And hence the opponents
of the utilitarian standard deem that they have
a right to infer that there are other ends of
human actions besides happiness, and that happiness is not the standard of approbation and
disapprobation.
But does the utilitarian doctrine deny that




UTILITARIANISAI.


85


people desire virtue, or maintain that virtue is
not a thing to be desired? The very reverse.
It maintains not only that virtue is to be desired,
but that it is to be desired disinterestedly, for
itself. Whatever may be the opinion of utilitarian moralists as to the original conditions by
which virtue is made virtue; however they may
believe (as they do) that actions and dispositions are only virtuous because they promote
another end than virtue; yet this being grantee,
and it having been decided, from considerations
of this description, what is virtuous, they not
only place virtue at the very head of things
which are good as means to the ultimate end,
but they also recognize as a psychological fact
the possibility of its being, to the individual,
a good in itself, without looking to any end
beyond it; and hold, that the mind is not in a
right state, not in a state comformable to Utility,
not in a state most conductive to the general
happiness, unless it does love virtue in this
manner-as a thing desirable in itself, even
although, in the individual instance, it should




86


UTILITARIANISM.


not produce those other desirable consequences
which it tends to produce, and on account of
which it is held to be virtue. This opinion is
not, in the smallest degree, a departure from the
Happiness principle. The ingredients of happiness are very various, and each of them is desirable in itself, and not merely when considered
as swelling an aggregate.   The principle of
utility does not mean that any given pleasure.
as music, for instance, or any given exemption
from pain, as for example health, are to be looked
upon as a means to a collective something termed
happiness, and to be desired on that account.
They are desired and desirable in and for themselves; besides being means, they are a party f
the end. Virtue, according to the utilitiloit-;'
doctrine, is not naturally and originally part.o
the end, but it is capable of becoming so; andi
in those who love it disinterestedly it hals
become so, and is desired and cherished, not aa means to happiness, but as a part of their
happiness.
To illustrate this farther, we may remember




UTILITARIANISM.


87


that virtue is not the only thing, originally a
means, and which if it were not a means to anything else, would be and remain indifferent, but
which by association with what it is a means to,
comes to be desired for itself, and that too with
the utfiost intensity. What, for example, shall
we say of the love of money? There is nothing
originally more desirable about money than about
any heap of glittering pebbles. Its worth is
solely that of the things which it will buy; the
desire for other things than itself, which it is a
means of gratifying. Yet the love of money is
not only one of the strongest moving forces of
human life, but money is, in many cases, desired
in and for itself; the desire to possess it is often
stronger than the desire to use it, and goes on
increasing when all the desires which point to
ends beyond it, to be compassed by it, are falling
off. It may be then said truly, that money is
desired not for the sake of an end, but as part of
the end. From being a means to happiness, it
has come to be itself a principal ingredient of the
individual's conception of happiness. The same




UTILITARIANISM.


mlay be said of the majority of the great objects
of human life-power, for example, or fame; except that to each of these there is a certain
amount of immediate pleasure annexed, which
ha; at least the semblance of being naturally
inherent in them; a thing which cannot be said
of money. Still, however, the strongest natural
attraction, both of power and of fame, is the immense aid they give to the attainment of our
other wishes; and it is the strong association
thus generated between them and all our objects
of desire, which gives to the direct desire of them
the intensity it often assumes, so as in some
characters to surpass in strength all other desires.
In these cases the means have become a part of
the end, and a more important part of it than
any of the things which they are means to.
What was once desired as an instrument for the
attainment of happiness, has come to be desired
for its own sake. In being desired for its own
sake it is, however, desired as part of happiness.
The person is made, or thinks he would be made,
happy by its mere possession; and is made un



UTILITARIANISM.


89.appy by failure to obtain it. The desire of it
is not a different thing from the desire of happi'iess, any more than the love of music, or the
desire of health. They are included in happiness.
They are some of the elements of which the
<desire of happiness is made up. Happiness is
not an abstract idea, but a concrete whole; and
these are some of its parts. And the utilitarian
standard sanctions and approves their being so.
Life would be a poor thing, very ill provided
with sources of happiness, if there were not
this provision of nature, by which things originally indifferent, but conducive to, or otherwise
associated with, the satisfaction of our primitive
desires, become in themselves sources of pleasure
more valuable than the primitive pleasures, both
in permanency, in the space of human existence
that they are capable of covering, and even in
intensity.
Virtue, according to the utilitarian conception,
is a good of this description. There was no
original desire of it, or motive to it, save its concruciveness to pleasure, and especially to protec



90


9UTILITARTANISM.


tion from pain. But through the association
thus formed, it may be felt a good in itself, and
desired as such with as great intensity as any
other good; and with this difference between it
and the love of money, of power or of fame, that
all of these may, and often do, render the individual noxious to the other members of the
society to which he belongs, whereas there is
nothing which makes him so much a blessing to
them as the cultivation of the disinterested love
of virtue.  And consequently, the utilitarian
standard, while it tolerates and approves those
other acquired desires, up to the point beyond
which they would be more injurious to the
general happiness than promotive of it, enjoins
and requires the cultivation  of the love of
virtue up to, tihe greatest strength possible, as
elig' altove all things important to the general
It results from  the preceding considerations,
that there is in reality nothing desired except
[a1)ppine>s.  llatever is desiredl otherwise than: a u(Xl:Uls tJ SOl: tenl ieyond itself, and ulti



UTILITARIANISM.


91


mately to happiness, is desired as itself a part of
happiness, and is not desired for itself until it
has become so. Those who desire virtue for its
own sake, desire it either because the consciousness of it is a pleasure, or because the consciousness of being without it is a pain, or for both
reasons united; as in truth the pleasure and
pain seldom exist separately, but almost always
together, the same person feeling pleasure in the
degree of virtue attained, and pain in not having
attained more. If one of these gave him no
pleasure, and the other no pain, he would not
love or desire virtue, or would desire it
only for the other benefits which it might
produce to himself or to persons whom he cared
for.
We have now, then, an answer to the question,
of what sort of proof the principle of utility is
susceptible. If the opinion which I have now
stated is psychologically true-if human nature
is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not
either a part of happiness or a means of happiness, we can have no other proof, and we require




U i lTARI A NIS3M.


no other, that these are the only things desirable.
If so, happiness is the sole end of human
action, and the prormotion of it the te..t by
which to judge of all human conduct; from
whence it necessarily follows that it must be the
criterion of morality, since a part is included in
the whole.
And now to decide whether this is really so;
whether mankind do desire nothing for itself but
that which is a pleasure to them, or of which the
absence is a pain; we have evidently arrived at
a question of fact and experience, dependent, like
all similar questions, upon evidence. It can only
be determined by practised self-consciousness and
self-observation, assisted by observation of
others. I believe that these sources of evidence,
impartially consulted, will declare that desiring
a tl ing and finding it pleasant, aversion to it and
thinking of it as painful, are phenomena entirely
in eparable, or rather two parts of the same
phenomenon; in strictness of language, two
different modes of naming the same psychological
fact: that to think of an object as desirable (un



'rTrLITARIANISM.


93


1 ss for the sake of its consequences), and to think
of it as pleasant, are one and the same thing;
and that to desire anything, except in proportion as the idea of it is pleasant, is a physical and
metaphysical impossibility.
So obvious does this appear to me, that I expect it will hardly be disputed; and the objection
made will be, not that desire can possibly be
directed to anything ultimately except pleasure
and exemption from pain, bt that the will is a
different thing from  desire; that a person of
confirmed virtue, or any other person whose purposes are fixed, carries out his purposes without
any thought of the pleasure he has in contemplating them, or expects to derive from their
fulfilment; and persists in acting on them, even
though these pleasures are much diminished, by
changes in his character or decay of his passive
sensibilities, or are outweighed by the pains
which the pursuit of the purposes may bring
upon him. All this I fully admit, and have
stated it elsewhere,as positively and emphatically
as any one. Will, the active phenomenon, is a




UTILITARIANISM.


different thing from desire, the state of passive
sensibility, and though originally an offshoot
from it, may in time take root and detach itself
from the parent stock; so much so, that in the
case of an habitual purpose, instead of willing
tie thing because we desire it, we often desire it
only because we will it. This, however, is but
an instance of that familiar fact, the power of
habit, and is nowise confined to the case of virtuous actions. Many indifferent things, which men
originally did from a motive of some sort, they
continue to do from  habit. Sometimes this is
done unconsciously, the consciousness coming
only after the action: at other times with conscious volition, but volition which has become
habitual, and is put into operation by the force
ot habit, in opposition perhaps to the deliberate
prieterence, as often happens with those who have
contracted habits of vicious or hurtful indulgence. Third and last comes the case in which
the habitual act of will in the individual instance
is not in contradiction to the general intention
rrevailing at other times, but in fulfilment of it;




UTILITARIANISM.


95_


as in the case of the person of confirmed virtue.
and of all who pursue deliberately and consistently any determinate end. The distinction between will and desire thus understood, is an
authentic and highly important psychological
fact; but the fact consists solely in this-that
will, like all other parts of our constitution, is
amenable to habit, and that we may will from
habit what we no longer desire for itself, or
desire only because we will it. It is not the less
true that will, in the beginning, is entirely produced by desire; including in that term the repelling influence of pain as well as the attractive
one of pleasure. Let us take into consideration, no
longer the person who has a confirmed will to do
right, but him in whom that virtuous will is still
feeble, conquerable by temptation, and not to be
fully relied on: by what means can it be
strengthened? How can the will to be virtuous, where it does not exist in sufficient
force, be implanted or awakened?  Only by
making the person desire virtue-by making
him think of it in a pleasurable light, or of its




93


UTILITARIANISM.


absence in a painful one. It is by associating the
doing right with pleasure, or the doing wrong
with pain, or by eliciting and impressing and
lringing home to the person's experience the
pleasure naturally involved in the one or the
pain in the other, that it is possible to call forth
that will to be virtuous, which, when confirmed,
acts without any thought of either pleasure or
pain. Will is the child of desire, and passes out of
the dominion of its parent only to come under
that of habit. That which is the result of habit
affords no presumption of being intrinsically
good; and there would be no reason for wishing
that the purpose of virtue should become independent of pleasure and pain, were it not that the
influence of the pleasurable and painful associations which prompt to virtue is not sufficiently
to be depended on for unerring constancy of
action until it has acquired the support of habit
Both in feeling and in conduct, habit is the only
thing which imparts certainty; and it is because
of the importance to others of being able to rely
absolutely on one's feelings and conduct, and to




UTILITARIANISM.               97
oneself of being able to rely on one's own, that
the will to do right ought to be cultivated into
this habitual independence. in other words, this
state of the will is a means to good, not
intrinsically a good; and does not contradict
the doctrine that nothing is a good to human
beings but in so far as it is either itself pleasuiable, or a means of attaining pleasure or averting
pain.
But if this doctrine be true, the principle of
utility is proved. Whether it is so or not, must
now be left to the consideration of the thought.
ful reader.




98


UTILITARIANISM.


CHAPTER V.
ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN JUSTICE AND
UTILITY.
IN all ages of speculation, one of the strongest
obstacles to the reception of the doctrine
that Utility or Happiness is the criterion of right
and wrong, has been drawn from the idea of
Justice. The powerful sentiment, and apparently
clear perception, which that word recalls with a
rapidity and certainty resembling an instinct,
have seemed-to the majority of thinkers to point
to an inherent quality in things; to show that
the Just must have an existence in Nature as
something absolute-generically distinct from
every variety of the Expedient, and, in idea,
opposed to it, though (as is commonly acknowledged) never, in the long run, disjoined from it
in fact.
In the case of this, as of our other moral sentiments, there is no necessary connexion between




UTILITARIANISM.


99


the question of its origin, and that of its binding
force. That a feeling is bestowed on us by
Nature, does not necessarily legitimate all its
promptings. The feeling of justice might be a
peculiar instinct, and might yet require, like our
other instincts, to be controlled and enlightened
by a higher reason. If we have intellectual instincts, leading us to judge in a particular way, as
well as animal instincts that prompt us to act in
a particular way, there is no necessity that the
former should be more infallible in their sphere
than the latter in theirs: it may as well happen
that wrong judgments are occasionally suggested
by those, as wrong actions by these. But though
it is one thing to believe that we have natural
feelings of justice, and another to acknowledge
them as an ultimate criterion of conduct, these
two opinions are very closely connected in point
of fact. Mankind are always predisposed to
believe that any subjective feeling, not otherwise accounted for, is a revelation of some
objective reality. Our present object is to deter.
mine whether the reality, to which the feeling




100


UTILITARIANISM.


of justice corresponds, is one which needs any
such special revelation; whether the justice or
injustice of an action is a thing intrinsically
peculiar, and distinct from all its other qualities,
or only a combination of certain of those qualities, presented under a peculiar aspect.      For
the purpose of this inquiry, it is practically important to consider whether the feeling itself of
justice and injustice, is sui generis like our
sensations of color and taste, or a derivative feeling, formed by a combination of others. And
this it is the more essential to examine, as people
are in general willing enough to allow, that
objectively the dictates of justice coincide with a
part of the field of General Expediency; but inasmuch as the subjective mental feeling of Justice is
different from that which commonly attaches to
simple expediency, and, except in extreme cases
of the latter, is far more imperative in its
demands, people find it difficult to see, in Justice,
only a particular kind or branch of general
utility, and think that its superior binding force
requires a totally different origin.




UTIIITAPRANISM.


101


To throw light upon this question, it is
necessary to attempt to ascertain what is the
distinguishing character of justice, or of injustice:
what is the quality, or whether there is any
quality, attributed in common to all modes of
conduct designated as unjust (for justice, like
many other moral attributes, is best defined by
its opposite), and distinguishing them from such
modes of conduct as are disapproved, but without
having that particular epithet of disapprobation
applied to them. If, in everything which men
are accustomed to charaterize as just or unjust,
some one common attribute or collection of attributes is always present, we may judge whether
this particular attribute or combination of attriributes would be capable of gathering round it a
sentiment of that peculiar character and intensity
by virtue of the general laws of our emotional
constitution, or whether the sentiment is inexplicable, and requires to be regarded as a special
provision of Nature. If we find the former to be
the case, we shall, in resolving this question, have
resolved also the main problem: if the latter, we




102


UTILITARIANISM.


shall have to seek for some other mode of
investigating it.
To find the common attributes of a variety of
objects, it is necessary to begin by surveying the
objects themselves in the concrete. Let us therefore advert successively to the various modes of
action, and arrangements of human affairs, which
are classed, by universal or widely spread opinion,
as Just or as Unjust. The things well known
to excite the sentiments associated with those
names, are of a very multifarious character. I
shall pass them rapidly in review, without studying any particular arrangement.
In the first place, it is mostly considered unjust
to deprive any one of his personal liberty, his
property, or any other thing which belongs to
him by law. Here, therefore, is one instance of
the application of the terms just and unjust in a
perfectly definite sense, nantciy, that it is just to
respect, unjust to violate, the legal ryights of alny
one. But this judgment admits of several exceptions, arising from the other forms in which




UTILITARIANISM.


103


the notions of justice and injustice present themselves. For example, the person who suffers
the deprivation may (as the phrase is) have
forfeited the rights which he is so deprived of:
a case to which we shall return presently. But
also,
Secondly; the legal rights of which he is deprived, may be rights which ought not to have
belonged to him; in other words, the law which
confers on him these rights, may be a bad law.
When it is so, or when (which is the same thing
for our purpose) it is supposed to be so, opinions
will differ as to the justice or injustice of infringing it. Some maintain that no law, however
bad, ought to be disobeyed by an individual
citizen; that his opposition to it, if shown at all,
should only be shown in endeavoring to get it
altered by competent authority. This opinion
(which condemns many of the most illustrious
benefactors of mankind, and would often protect
pernicious institutions against the only weapons
which, in the state of things existing at the
time, have any chance of succeeding against




104


UTILITARIANISM.


them) is defended, by those who hold it, on
grounds of expediency; principally on that of
the importance to the common interest of mankind, of maintaining inviolate the sentiment of
submission to law. Other persons, again, hold
the directly contrary opinion, that any law,
judged to be bad, may blamelessly be disobeyed,
even though it be not judged to be unjust, but
only inexpedient; while others would confine the
licence of disobedience to the case of unjust laws:
but again, some say, that all laws which are inexpedient are unjust; since every law imposes
some restriction on the natural liberty of mankind, which restriction is an injustice, unless
legitimated by tending to their good. Among
these diversities of opinion, it seems to be universally admitted that there may be unjust laws,
and that law, consequently, is not the ultimate
criterion of justice, but may give to one person
a benefit, or impose on another an evil, which
justice condemns. When, however, a law is
thought to be unjust, it seems always to be
regarded as being so in the same way in which a




UTILITARIANISM.


105


breach of law is unjust, namely, by infringing
somebody's right; which, as it cannot in
this case be a legal right, receives a different
appellation, and  is called  a  moral right.
We may say, therefore, that a second case of
injustice consists in taking or withholding
from any person that to which he has a moral
right.
Thirdly, it is universally considered just that
each person should obtain that (whether good or
evil) which he dsves; and unjust that he should
obtain a good, or be made to undergo an evil,
which he does not deserve. This is, perhaps, the
clearest and most emphatic form in which the
idea of justice is conceived by the general
mind. As it involves the notion of desert, the
question arises, what constitutes desert? Speaking in a general way, a person is understood to deserve good if he does right, evil if he
does wrong; and in a more particular sense, to
deserve good from those to whom-he does or has
done good, and evil from those to whom he does
or has done evil. The precept of returning good




106


UTILITARIANISM.


for evil has never been regarded as a case of the
fulfilment of justice, hut as one in which the
claims of justice are waived, in obedience to other
considerations.
Fourthly, it is confessedly unjust to break
faith with any one; to violate an engagement,
either expressed or implied, or disappoint expectations raised by our own conduct, at least if
we have raised those expectations knowingly
and voluntarily. Like the other obligations of
justice already spoken of, this one is not regarded
as absolute, but as capable of being overruled by
a stronger obligation of justice on the other side
or by such conduct on the part of the person
concerned as is deemed to absolve us from our
obligation to him, and to constitute a fjbrfeiture
of the benefit which he has been led to expect
Fifthly, it is, by universal admission, inconsistent with justice to be ipatial; to show favor
or preference to one person over another, in matters to which favor and preference do not properly apply.  Impartiality, however, does not
seem to be reg'carded as a duty in itseL, but




UTILITARIANISM.


107


rather as instrumental to some other duty; for it
is admitted that favor and preference are not
always censurable, and indeed the cases in which
they are condemned are rather the exception than
the rule. A person would be more likely to be
blamed than applauded for giving his family or
friends no superiority in good offices over
strangers, when he could do so without violating
any other duty; and no one thinks it unjust to
seek one person in preference to another as a
friend, connexion, or companion. Impartiality
where rights are concerned is of course obligatory, but this is involved in the more general
obligation of giving to every one his right. A
tribunal, for example, must be impartial, because
it is bound to award, without regard to any other
consideration, a disputed object to the one oI
two parties who has the right to it. There are
other cases in which impartiality means, being
solely influenced by desert; as with those who.
in the capacity of judges, preceptors, or parents,
alllinister reward and punishment as such.
There axe cases, again, in which it means, being




108


UTILITARIANISM.


solely influenced by consideration for the public
interest; as in making a selection among candidates for a Government employment.   Impartiality, in short, as an obligation of justice, may
be said to mean, being exclusively influenced by
the considerations which it is supposed ought to
influence the particular case in hand; and resisting the solicitation of any motives which prompt
to conduct different from what those considerations would dictate.
Nearly allied to the idea of impartiality, is
that of equality; which often enters as a component part both into the conception of justice and
into the practice of it, and, in the eyes of many
persons, contstitutes its essence.  But in this,
still more than in any other case, the notion
of justice  varies in  different persons, and
always conforms in its variations to their notion
of utility.  QEhal erson   maintains that equal
justice, except where
-      k   thit, pe  i.ency,requires inequallit    The justice of giving equal protectiin
to the rights of all, is maintained by those wh:




UTILITARIANISM.


109


support the most outrageous inequality in the
rights themselves. Even in slave countries it is
theoretically admitted that the rights of the slave,
such as they are, ought to be as sacred as those
of the master; and that a tribunal which fails
to enforce them with equal strictness is wanting
in justice; while, at the same time, institutions
which leave to the slave scarcely any rights to
enforce, are not deemed unjust, because they are
not deemed inexpedient. Those who think that
utility requires distinctions of rank, do not consider it unjust that riches and social privileges
should be unequally dispensed; but those who
think this inequality inexpedient, think in unjust
also. Whoever thinks that government is necessary, sees no injustice in as much inequality as is
constituted by giving to the magistrate powers
not granted to other people. Even among those
who hold levelling doctrines, there are as many
questions of justice as there are differences of
opinions about expediency. Some Communists
consider it unjust that the produce of the labor
of the community should be shared on any other




110


UTILITARIANISM.


principle than that of exact equality; others
think it just that those should receive most
whose needs are greatest; while others hold that
those who work harder, or who produce more,
or whose services are more valuable to the community, may justly claim a larger quota in the
division of the produce. And the sense of
natural justice may be plausibly appealed to in
behalf of every one of these opinions.
Among so many diverse applications of the
term Justice, which yet is not regarded as ambiguous, it is a matter of some difficulty to seize
the mental link which holds them together, and
on which the moral sentiment adhering to the
term essentially depends. Perhaps, in this embarrassment, some help may be derived from the
history of the word, as indicated by its etymology.
In most, if not in all, languages, the etymology
of the words which correspond to Just, points to
an origin connected either with positive law, or
with that which was in most cases the primitive
form of law-authoritative custom. Justum is




UTILITARIANISM.


111


a form of jussum, that which has been ordered.
Jus is of the same origin. AlKatov comes from
6o;K, of which the principle meaning, at least in
the historical ages of Greece, was a suit at law.
Originally, indeed, it meant only the mode or
manner of doing things, but it early came to
mean the prescribed manner; that which the
recognised authorities, patriarchal, judicial, or
political, would enforce.  Becht, from  which
came right and righteous, is synonymous with
law. The original meaning, indeed, of recht did
not point to law, but to physical straightness;
as wrong and its Latin equivalents meant twisted
or tortuous; and from  this it is argued that
riglht did not originally mean law, but on the
contrary law meant right. But however this
may be, the fact that recht and droit became
restricted in their meaning to positive law,
although much which is not required by law
is equally necessary to moral straightness or
rectitude, is as significant of the original character of moral ideas as if the derivation had
been the reverse way.   The courts of justice,




112


UTILITARIANISM.


the administration of justice, are the courts
and the administration of law.    La justice
in French, is the established term for judicature.  There can, I think, be no doubt that
the idee rne<'e, the primitive element, in the
formation of the notion of justice, was conformity to law. It constituted the entire idea
among the Hebrews, up to the birth of Christianity; as might be expected in the case of a people whose laws attempted to embrace all subjects
on which precepts were required, and who believed those laws to be a direct emanation from
the Supreme Being. But other nations, and in
particular the Greeks and Romans, who knew
that their laws had been made originally, and
still continued to be made, by men, were not
afraid to admit that those men might make bad
laws; might do, by law, the same things, and
from the same motives, which, if done by individuals without the sanction of law, would be
called unjust. And hence the sentiment of unjustice came to be attached, not to all violations
of law, but only to violations of such laws as




UTILITARIANIS3M.


113


ought to exist, including such as ought to exist
but do not; and to laws themselves, if supposed
to be contrary to what ought to be law. In this
manner the idea of law and of its injunctions was
still predominant in the notion of justice, even
when the laws actually in force ceased to be accepted as the standard of it.
It is true that mankind consider the idea of
justice and its obligations as applicable to many
things which neither are, nor is it desired that
they should be, regulated by law Nobody desires that laws should interfere with the whole
detail of private life; yet every one allows that
in all daily conduct a person may and does show
himself to be either just or unjust. But even
here, the idea of thebreach of what ought to be
law, still lingers in a modified shape. It would
always give us pleasure, and chime in with our
feeelings of fitness, that acts which we deem unjust should be punished, though we do not always
think it expedient that this should be done by
the tribunals. We forego that gratification on
account of incidental inconveniences. We should
II




114


UTILITARIANISM.


be glad to see just conduct enforced and injustice
repressed, even in the minutest details, if we
were not, with reason, afraid of trusting the
magistrate with so unlimited an amount of power
over individuals. When we think that a person
is bound in justice to do a thing, it is an ordinary
form of language to say, that he ought to be
compelled to do it. We should be gratified to see
the obligation enforced by anybody who had the
power. If we see that its enforcement by law
is inexpedient, we lament the impossibility, we
consider the impunity given to injustice as an
evil, and strive to make amends for it by bringing a strong expression of our own and the
public disapprobation to bear upon the offender.
Thus the idea of legal constraint is still the
generating idea of the notion of justice, though
undergoing several transformations before that
notion, as it exists in an advanced state of society,
becomes complete.
The above is, I think, a true account, as far
as it goes, of the origin and progressive growth
of the idea of justice. But we must observe,




UTILITARIANISM.


115


that it contains, as yet, nothing to distinguish
that obligation from moral obligation in general.
For the truth is, that the idea of penal sanction,
which is the essence of law, enters not only into
the conception of injustice, but into that of
any kind of wrong. We do not call anything
wrong, unless we mean to imply that a person
ought to be punished in some way or other
for doing it; if not by law, by the opinion of
his fellow creatures; if not by opinion, by the
reproaches of his own conscience. This seems
the real turning point of the distinction
between morality and simple expediency. It
is a part of the notion of Duty in every one of its
forms, that a person may rightfully be compelled
to fulfil it.  Duty is a thing which may be
exacted from a person as one exacts a debt.
Unless we think that it might be exacted from
him, we do not call it his duty. Reasons of prudence, or the interest of other people, may
militate against actually exacting it; but the
person himself, it is clearly understood, would
not be entitled to complain. There are other




116


UTILITARIANISM.


things, on the contrary, which we wish that
people should do, which we like or admire them
for doing, perhaps dislike or despise them for not
doing, but yet admit that they are not bound to
do; it is not a case of moral obligation; we do
not blame them, that is, we do not think that
they are proper objects of punishment.  How we
come by these ideas of deserving and not deserving punishment, will appear, perhaps, in the
sequel; but I think there is no doubt that this
distinction lies at the bottom  of the notions of
right and wrong; that we call any conduct
wrong, or employ instead, some other term of
dislike or disparagement, according as we think
that the person ought, or ought not, to be punished for it; and we say that it would be right
to do so and so, or merely that it would be desirable or laudable, according as we would wish
to see the person whom it concerns, compelled or
only persuaded and exhorted, to act in that
manner.*
* See this point enforced and illustrated by Professor Bain,
in an admirable chapter (entitled " The Ethical Emotions, or
the Moral Sense,") of the second of the two treatises composing his elaborate and profound work on the Mind.




UTILITARIANISM.


117


This, therefore, being the characteristic difference which marks off, not justice, but morality in
general, from the remaining provinces of Expe
diency and Worthiness; the character is still to
be sought which distinguishes justice from other
branches of morality. Now it is known that
ethical writers divide moral duties into two
classes, denoted by the ill-chosen expressions
duties of perfect and of imperfect obligation;
the latter being those in which, though the act is
obligatory, the particular occasions of performing
it are left to our choice; as in the case of charity
or beneficence, which we are indeed bound to
practise, but not towards any definite person, nor
at any prescribed time. In the more precise
language of philosophic jurists, duties of perfect
obligation are those duties in virtue of which
a correlative right resides in some person or persons; duties of imperfect obligation are those
moral obligations which do not give birth to any
right. I think it will be found that this distinction exactly coincides with that which exists
between justice and the other obligations of




118


UTILITARIANISM.


morality. In our survey of the various popular
acceptations of justice, the term appeared generally to involve the idea of a personal right-a
claim  on the part of one or more individuals,
like that which the law gives -v:hen it confers a
proprietary or other legal right. Whether the
injustice consists in depriving a person of a
possession, or in breaking faith with him, or in
treating him worse than he deserves, or worse
than other people who have no greater claims, in
each case the supposition implies two thingsa wrong done, and some assignable person
who is wronged. Injustice may also be done
by treating a person better than others; but the
wrong in this case is to his competitors, who
are also assignable persons.  It seems to me
that this feature in the case-a right in some
person, correlative to the moral obligation-constitutes the specific difference between justice,
and generosity or beneficence. Justice implies
something which it is not only right to do, and
wrong not to do, but which some individual
person can claim from us as his moral right. No




UTILITARIANISM.


119


one has a moral right to our generosity or beneficence, because we are not morally bound to
practise those virtues towards any given individual. And it will be found, with respect to this
as with respect to every correct definition, that
the instances which seem to conflict with it are
those which most confirm it. For if a moralist
attempts, as some have done, to make out that
mankind generally, though not any given individual, have a right to all the good we can do
them, he at once, by that thesis, includes generousity and beneficence within the category of
justice. He is obliged to say, that our utmost
exertions are due to our fellow creatures, thus
assimilating them to a debt; or that nothing less
can be a sufficient return for what society does
for us, thus classing the case as one of gratitude;
both of which are acknowledged cases of justice.
Wherever there is a right, the case is one of
justice, and not of the virtue of beneficence: and
whoever does not place the distinction between
justice and morality in general where we have
now placed it, will be found to make no distinc



120


UTILITARIANISM.


tion between them at all, but to merge 'all
morality in justice.
Having thus endeavored to determine the
distinctive elements which enter into the composition of the idea of justice, we are ready to
enter on the inquiry, whether the feeling, which
accompanies the idea, is attached to it by a special
dispensation of nature; or whether it could have
grown up, by any known laws, out of the idea
itself; and in particular, whether it can have
originated in considerations of general expediency.
I conceive that the sentiment itself does not
arise from anything which would commonly, or
correctly, be termed an idea of expediency; but
that, though the sentiment does not, whatever
is moral in it does.
We have seen that the two essential ingredients in the sentiment of justice are, the desire to
punish a person who has done harm, and the
knowledge or belief that there is some definite
individual or individuals to whom harm has
been done.




UTILITARIANISM.


121


Now   it appears to me, that the desire to
punish a person who has done harm     to some
ildividual, is a spontaneous outgrowth from two
centinicnts, both in the highest degree natural,
and which either are or resemble instincts; the
imllpulse of self-defence, and  the feeling  of
sy lpathy.
Tt is natural to resent, and to repel or retaliate. any  harm   done   or  attempted  against,urselves, or against those with whom we sympathise. 'T'l origin of this sentiment it is not
necessary here to discuss.  Whether it be an instinct or a result of intelligence, it is, we know,
-omnmon to all animal nature: for every animal
tries to hurt those who have hurt, or who
it thinks are about to hurt, itself or its young.
Human beings, on this point, only differ from
other animals in two particulars.    First, in
being capable of sympathising, not solely with
their offspring, or, like some of the more noble
animals, with some superior animal who is kind
to them, lut with all human, and even with all
sentient, beings.  Secondly, in having a more




122


UTILITARIANISM.


developed intelligence, which gives a wider
range to the whole of their sentiments, whether
self-regarding or sympathetic. By virtue of his
superior intelligence, even apart from his superor range of sympathy, a human being is capable
of apprehending a community of interest
between himself and the human society of
which he forms a part, such that any conduct
which threatens the security of the society,
generally, is threatening to his own, and calls
forth his instinct (if instinct it be) of self-defence.
The same superiority of intelligence, joined to
the power of sympathising with human beings
generally, enables him to attach himself to the
collective idea of his tribe, his country, or mankind, in such a manner that any act hurtful to
them rouses his instinct of sympathy, and urges
him to resistance.
The sentiment of justice, in that one of its ele— ents which consists of the desire to punish, is
thus, I conceive, the natural feeling of retaliation
or vengeance, rendered by intellect and sympathy
applicable to those injuries, that is, to those




UTILITARIANISM.


123


hurts, which wound us through, or in common
with, society at large. This sentiment, in itself,
has nothing moral in it; what is moral is, the
exclusive subordination of it to the social sympathies, so as to wait on and obey their call. For
the natural feeling tends to make us resent indiscrimately whatever any one does that is disagreeable to us; but when moralised by the
social feeling, it only acts in the directions
conformable to the general good; just persons
resenting a hurt to society, though not otherwise a hurt to themselves, and not resenting a
hurt to themselves, however painful, unless it be
of the kind which society has a common interest
with them in the repression of.
It is no objection against this doctrine to say,
that when we feel our sentiment of justice outraged, we are not thinking of society at large, or
of any collective interest, but only of the individual case. It is common enough certainly,
though the reverse of commendable, to feel
resentment merely because we have suffered
pain; but a person whose resentment is really a




124


UTILITARIANISM.


moral feeling, that is, who considers whether an
act is blameable before he allows himself to
resent it-such a person, though he may not say
expressly to himself that he is standing up for
the interest of society, certainly does feel that he
is asserting a rule which is for the benefit of
others as well as for his own. If he is not feeling this-if he is regarding the act solely as it
affects him individually-he is not consciously
just; he is not concerning himself about the
justice of his actions. This is admitted even by
anti-utilitarian moralists. When Kant (as before
remarked) propounds as the fundamental principle of morals, 'So act, that thy rule of conduct
might be adopted as a law by all rational beings,'
he virtually acknowledges that the interest of
mankind collectively, or at least of mankind
indiscriminately, must be in the mind of the
agent when conscientiously deciding on the
morality of the act. Otherwise he uses words
without a meaning: for, that a rule even of utter
selfishness could not possibly be adopted by all
rational beings-that there is any insuperable




UTILITARIANISM.


125


obstacle in the nature of things to its
adoption-cannot be even      plausibly maintained. To give any meaning to Kant's
principle, the sense put upon it must be,
that we ought to shape, our conduct by
a rule which all rational beings might adopt with
benefit to their collective interest.
To recapitulate: the idea of justice supposes
two things; a rule of conduct, and a sentiment
which sanctions the rule. The first must be supposed common to all makind, and intended for
their good. The other (the sentiment) is a desire that punishment may be suffered by those
who infringe the rule. There is involved, in
addition, the conception of some definite person
who suffers by the infringement; whose rights
(to use the expression appropriated to the case) are
violated by it. And the sentiment of justice
appears to me to be, the animal desire to repel
or retaliate a hurt or damage to oneself, or to
those with whom one sympathises, widened so
as to include all persons, by the human capacity
of enlarged sympathy, and the human concep



126


UTILITARIANISM.


tion of intelligent self-interest. From the latter
elements, the feeling derives its morality; from
the former, its peculiar impressiveness, and energy
of self-assertion.
I have, throughout, treated the idea of a right
residing in the injured person, and violated by
the injury, not as a separate element in the composition of the idea and sentiment, but as one of
the forms in which the other two elements
clothe themselves. These elements are, a hurt to
some assignable person or persons on the one
hand, and a demand for punishment on the
other. An examination of our own minds, T
think, will show, that these two things include
all that we mean when we speak of violation of
a right. When we call anything a person's
right, we mean that he has a valid claim on
society to protect him in the possession of it,
either by the force of law, or by that of education and opinion. If he has what we consider a
sufficient claim, on whatever account, to have
something guaranteed to him by society, we say
that he has a right to it. If we desire to prove




TTILITARIANISM.


127


that anything does not belong to him by right,
we think this done as soon as it is admitted
that society ought not to take measures for
securing it to him, but should leave it to chance,
or to his own exertions. Thus, a person is said
to have a right to what he can earn in fair professional competition; because society ought not
to allow any other person to hinder him from
endeavoring to earn in that manner as much as
he can. But he has not a right to three hundred
a-year, though he may happen to be earning it;
because society is not called on to provide that
he shall earn that sum. On the contrary, if he
owns ten thousand pounds three per cent. stock
he has a right to three hundred a-year; because
society has come under an obligation to provide
him with an income of that amount.
To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have
something which society ought to defend me
in the possession of.  If the objector goes
on to ask why it ought, I can give him no
other reason than general utility.  If that
expression does not seem to convey a suffi



128


UTILITARIANISM.


eient feeling of the strength of the obligation,
nor to account for the peculiar energy of
the feeling, it is because there goes to the
com)position of the sentiment, not a rational
only but also an animal element, the thirst
for retaliation; and this thirst derives its intensity, as well as its moral justification, from
the extraordinarily important and impressive
kind of utility which is concerned. The interest
involved is that of security, to every one's feelings the most vital of all interests. Nearly all
other earthly benefits are needed by one person,
not needed by another; and many of them can,
if necessary, be cheerfully foregone, or replaced
by something else; but security no human being
can possibly do without; on it we depend for all
our immunity from evil, and for the whole value
of all and every good, beyond the passing moment; since nothing but the gratification of the
instant could be of any worth to us, if we could
be deprived of everything the next instant by
whoever was momentarily stronger than ourselves. Now this most indispensable of all neces




UTILITARIANIS3M.


129


sarics, after physical nutriment, cannot be had,
unless the machinery for providing it is kept
unintermittedly in active play.  Our notion,
tllerefore, of the claim we have on our fellow
creatures to join in making safe for us the very
gr'oulldwork of our existence, gathers feelinogs
rund-lll it so much more intense than those concerned in any of the more common cases of utility.
that the difference in degree (as is often the case
il psychology) becomes a real diffbrence ill kind.
The claim assumes that character of absoluteness,
that apparent infinity, and incommensurability
with all other considerations, which constitute
the distinction between the feeling of right and
wrong and that of ordinary expediency and inexpediency.  The feelings concerned are so
powerful, and we count so positively on finding
a responsive feeling in others (all being alike
interested), that ought and should grow into
mutst, and recognized indispensability becomes a
moral necessity, analogous to physical, and often
not inferior to it in binding force.
If the preceding analysis, or something reI




It A


UTILITARIANIS3M.


sembling it, be not the correct account of the
notion of justice; if justice be totally independent
of utility, and be a standard per se, which the
mind can recognize by simple introspection of itself; it is hard to understand why that internal
oracle is so ambiguous, and why so many things
appear either just or unjust, according to the
light in which they are regarded.
We are continually informed that Utility is an
uncertain standard, which every different person
interprets differently, and that there is no safety
but in the immutable, ineffaceable, and unmistakeable dictates of Justice, which carry their
evidence in themselves, and are independent of
the fluctuations of opinion. One would suppose
from this that on questions of justice there could
be no controversy; that if we take that for our
rule, its application to any given case could leave
us in as little doubt as a mathematical demonstration. So far is this from being the fact, that
there is as much difference of opinion, and as
fierce discussion, about what is just, as about
what is useful to society. Not only have differ



UTILITARIANISM.


131


ent nations and individuals different notions of
justice, but, in the mind of one and the same
individual, justice is not some one rule, principle,
or maxim, but many, which do not always coincide in their dictates, and in choosing between
which, he is guided either by some extraneous
standard, or by his own personal predilections.
For instance, there are some who say, that it
is unjust to punish any one for the sake of
example to others; that punishment is just, only
when intended for the good of the sufferer
himself. Others maintain the extreme reverse,
contending that to punish persons who have
attained years of discretion, for their own benefit,
is despotism and injustice, since if the matter at
issue is solely their own good, no one has a right
to control their own judgment of it; but that
they may justly be punished to prevent evil to
others, this being an exercise of the legitimate
right of self defence. Mr. Owen, again, affirms
that it is unjust to punish at all; for the criminal
did not make his own character; his education,
and the circumstances which surround him, have




132


UTILITARIANISM.


made him a criminal, and for these he is not
responsible.  All these opinions are extremely
plausible; and so long as the question is arguedl
as one of justice simply, without going down to
the principles which lie under justice and are the
source of its authority, I am unable to see how
any of these reasoners can be refuted.  For, in
truth, every one of the three builds upon rules of
justice confessedly true. The firstappeals to the
acknowledged injustice of singling out an individual, and making him a sacrifice, without his
consent, for other people's benefit. The second
relies on the acknowledged justice of self-defence,
and the admitted injustice of forcing one person
to conform to another's notions of what constitutes his good.   The Owenite invokes the
admitted principle, that it is unjust to punish
any one for what he cannot help.     Each is
triumphant so long as he is not compelled to
take into consideration any other maxims of
justice than the one he has selected; but as soon
as their several maxims are brought face to face,
each disputant seems to have exactly as much to




UTILITARIANISM.


133


say for himself as the others. No one of them
can carry out his own notion of justice without trampling upon another equally binding.
These are difficulties; they have always been
felt to be such; and many devices have been
invented to turn rather than to overcome them.
As a refuge from the last of the three, men imagine what they called the freedom of the will;
fancying that they could not justify punishing
a man whose will is in a thoroughly hateful
state, unless it be supposed to have come into
that state through no influence of anterior circumstances. To escape from the other difficulties,
a favorite contrivance has been the fiction of a
contract, whereby at some unknown period all
the members of society engage to obey the laws,
and consent to be punished for any disobedience
to them; thereby giving to their legislators the
right, which it is assumed they would not otherwise have had, of punishing them, either for their
own good or for that of society. This happy
thought was considered to get rid of the whole
difficulty, and to legitimate the infliction of pun.




134


UTILITARIANISM.


ishment, in virtue of another received maxim of
justice, volenti non fit injuria; that is not unjust
which is done with the consent of the person
who is supposed to be hurt by it.       I needI
hardly remark, that even if the consent were
not a mere fiction, this maxim is not superior
in authority to the others which it is brought
in  to supersede.    It is, on   the  contrary,
an instructive specimen of the loose and irregular manner in which supposed principles
of justice grow  up. This particular one evidently came into use as a help to the coarse
exigencies of courts of law, which arc sometimes obliged to be content with very uncertain
presumptions, on account of the greater evils
which would often    arise from   any  attempt
on their part to cut finer. But even courts -if
law are not able to adhere consistently to the
maxim, for they allow voluntary eng'agements
to be set aside on the ground of fraud, and
sometimes on that of mere mistake or misilnformation.
Again, when    the legitimacy   of  inflicting




UTILITARIANISM.


135


punishment is admitted, how many conflicting
conceptions of justice come to light in discussing
the proper apportionment of punishment to
offences. No rule on this subject recommends
itself so strongly to the primitive and spontaneous sentiment of justice, as the lex talionis, an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Though
this principle of the Jewish and of the Mahomedan law has been generally abandoned in Europe
as a practical maxim, there is, I suspect, in most
minds, a secret hankering after it; and when
retribution accidentally falls on an offender in
that precise shape, the general feeling of satisfaction evinced, bears witness how natural is the
sentiment to which this repayment in kind is
acceptable. With many the test of justice in
penal infliction is that the punishment should be
proportioned to the offence; meaning that it
should be exactly measured by the moral guilt
of the culprit (whatever be their standard for
measuring moral guilt): the consideration, what
amount of punishment is necessary to deter from
the offence, having nothing to do with the ques



13G


UTILITARIANISM.


tion of justice, in their estimation: while there
are others to whom that consideration is all in
all; who maintain that it is not just, at least for
man, to inflict on a fellow creature, whatever
may be his offences, any amount of suffering
beyond the least that will suffice to prevent him
from repeating, and others from imitating, his
misconduct.
To take another example from a subject
already once referred to. In a co-operative
industrial association, is it just or not that talent
or skill should give a title to superior remuneration? On the negative side of the question it is
argued, that whoever does the best he can,
deserves equally well, and ought not in justice to
be put in a position of inferiority for no fault of
his own; that superior abilities have already
advantages more than enough, in the admiration
they excite, the personal influence they command, and the internal sources of satisfaction
attending them, without adding to these a superior share of the world's goods; and that society
is bound in justice rather to make compensation




UTILITARIANISM.


137


to the less favored, for this unmerited inequality
of advantages, than to aggravate it.  On the
contrary side it is contended, that society receives
more from  the more efficient laborer; that his
services being more useful, society owes him a
larger return for them; that a greater share of
the joint result is actually his work, and not to
allow his clainl to it is a kind of robbery; that if
he is only to receive as much as others, he can
only be justly required to produce as much, and
to give a smaller amount of time and exertion,
proportioned to his superior efficiency.  Who
shall decide between these appeals to conflicting
principles of justice? Justice has in this case
two sides to it, which it is impossible to bring
into harmony, and the two disputants have
chosen opposite sides; the one looks to what it
is just that the individual should receive, the
other to what it is just that the community
should give. Each, from his own point of view,
is unanswerable; and any choice between
them, on grounds of justice, must be perfectly




138


UTILITARIANISM.


arbitrary. Social utility alone can decide the
preference.
How many, again, and how irreconcilable, axe
the standards of justice to which reference is
made in discussing the repartition of taxation.
One opinion is, that payment to the State shouldi
be in numerical proportion to pecuniary means.
Others think that justice dictates what they
term graduated taxation; taking a higher percentage from those who have more to spare. In
point of natural justice a strong case might be
made for disregarding means altogether, and
taking the same absolute sum (whenever it could
be got) from every one: as the subscribers to a
mess, or to a club, all pay the same sum for the
same privileges, whether they can all equally
afford it or not. Since the protection (it might
be said) of law and government is afforded to.
and is equally required by, all, there is no injustice in making all buy it at the same price. It,
is reckoned justice, not injustice, that a dealer
should charge to all customers the same price for
thle same article, not a price varying according to




UTILITARIANISM.


139M


their means of payment.      This doctrine, as
applied to taxation, finds no advocates, because it
conflicts strongly with men's feelings of humanity
and perceptions of social expediency; but the
principle of justice which it invokes is as true
and as binding as those which can be appealed to
against it. Accordingly, it exerts a tacit influence on the line of defence employed for other
modes of assessing taxation. People feel obliged
to argue that the State does more for the rich
than for the poor, as a justification for its taking
more from them: though this is in reality not
true, for the rich would be far better able to,
protect themselves in the absence of law or
government, than the poor, and indeed would
probably be successful in converting the poor
into their slaves. Others, again, so far defer to
the same conception of justice, as to maintain
that all should pay an equal capitation tax for
the protection of their persons (these being of
equal value to all), and an unequal tax for the
protection of their property, which is unequal.
To this others reply, that the all of one man is as




140


UTILITARIANISM.


valuable to him as the all of another. F'roml
these confusions there is no other mode of extrication than the utilitarian.
Is, then, the difference between the Just and
the Expedient a merely imaginary distinction?
Have mankind been under a delusion in thinking that justice is a more sacred thing than
policy, and that the latter ought only to be listened
to after the former has been satisfied? By no
means.  The exposition we have given of the
nature and origin of the sentiment, recognizes a
real distinction; and no one of those who profess the most sublime contempt for the consequences of actions as an element in their morality, attaches more importance to the distinction
than I do  While I dispute the pretensions of
any theory which sets up an imaginary standard
of justice not grounded on utility, I account the
justice which is grounded on utility to be the
chief part, and incomparably the most sacred and
binding part, of all morality. Justice is a name
for certain classes of moral rules, which concern




UTILITARIANISM.


141


the essentials of human well-being more nearly,
and are therefore of more absolute obligation,
than any other rules for the guidance of life;
and the notion which we have found to be of th
essence of the idea of justice, that of a right
residing in an individual, implies and testifies to
this more binding obligation.
The moral rules which forbid mankind to hurt
one another (in which we must never forget to
include wrongful interference with each other's
freedom) are more vital to human well-being than
any maxims, however important, which only
point out the best mode of managing some department of human affairs. They have also the
peculiarity, that they are the main element in
determining the whole of the social feelings of
mankind. It is their observance which alone
preserves peace among human beings: if obedience to them were not the rule, and disobedience
the exception, every one would see in every one
else a probable enemy, against whom he must be
perpetually guarding himself. What is hardly
less important, these are the precepts which




142


UTILITARIANISM.


mankind have the strongest and the most direct
inducements for impressing upon one another.
By merely giving to each other prudential instruction or exhortation, they may gain, or think
they gain, nothing: in inculcating on each other
the duty of positive beneficence they have an
unmistakeable interest, but far less in degree:
a person may possibly not need the benefits of
others; but he always needs that they should not
do him hurt. Thus the moralities which protect
every individual from being harmed by others,
either directly or by being hindered in his freedom of pursuing his own good, are at once those
which he himself has most at heart, and those
which he has the strongest interest in publishing
and enforcing by word and deed. It is by a
person's observance of these, that his fitness to
exist as one of the fellowship of human bei)ngs,
is tested and decided; for on that depends his
being a nuisance or not to those with whom he
is in contact. Now it is these moralities primarily, which compose the obligations of justice.
The most marked cases of injustice, and those




UTILITARIANISM.


143


which give the tone to the feeling of repugnance
which characterizes the sentiment, are acts of
wrongful aggression, or wrongful exercise of
power over some one; the next are those which
consist in wrongfully withholding from him
something which is his due; in both cases, inflicting on him a positive hurt, either in the form
of direct suffering, or of the privation of some
good which he had reasonable ground, either of a
physical or of a social kind, for counting upon.
The same powerful motives which command
the observance of these primary moralities,
enjoin the punishment of those who violate
them; and as the impulses of self-defence, of defence of others, and of vengeance, are all called
forth against such persons, retribution, or
evil for evil, becomes closely connected with
t.he sentiment of justice, and is universally included in the idea. Good for good is also one of
the dictates of justice; and this, though its.
social utility is evident, and though it carries
with it a natural human feeling, has not at first
sight that obvious connexion with hurt or in



144


UTILTTTARIANISM.


juryv, which, existing in the most elementary
cases of just and unjust, is the source of the characteristic intensity of the sentiment. But the
connexion,though less obvious,is not less real. He
who accepts benefits, and denies a return of them
when needed, inflicts a real hurt, by disappointing one of the most natural and reasonable of
expectations, and one which lie must at least
tacitly have encouraged, otherwise the benefits
would seldom have been conferred. The important rank, among human evils and wrongs, of the
disappointment of expectation, is shown in the
fact that it constitutes the principal criminality
of two such highly immoral acts as a breach of
friendship and a breach of promise. Few hurts
which human beings can sustain are greater, and
none wound more, than when that on which they
habitually and with full assurance relied, fails
them in the hour of need; andl few wrongs are
greater than this mere withholding of goodl
none excite more resentment, either in the person
suffering, or in a symplathizing spectator. The
principle, therefore, of giving to each what thel




UTILITARIANISM.


145


deserve, that is, good for good as well as evil for
evil, is not only included within the idea of Justice as we have defined it, but is a proper object
of that intensity of sentiment, which places the
Just, in human estimation, above the simply Expedient.
Most of the maxims of justice current in the
world, and commonly appealed to in its transactions, are simply instrumental to carrying into
effect the principles of justice which we have now
spoken of. That a person is only responsible for
what he has done voluntarily, or could voluntarily have avoided; that it is unjust to condemn
any person unheard; that the punishment ought
to be proportioned to the offence, and the like,
are maxims intended to prevent the just principle of evil for evil from being perverted to the
infliction of evil without that justification. The
greater part of these common maxims have come
into use from the practice of courts of justice,
which have been naturally led to a more complete recognition and elaboration than was likely
to suggest itself to others, of the rules necessary
3




146


UTILITARIANISM.


to enable them to fulfil their double function, of
inflicting punishment when due, and of awarding
to each person his right.
That first of judicial virtues, impartiality, is
an obligation of justice, partly for the reason
last mentioned; as being a necessary condition
of the fulfilment of the other obligations of
justice. But this is not the only source of the
exalted rank, among human obligations, of those
maxims of equality and impartiality, which, both
in popular estimation and in that of the most
enlightened, are included among the precepts of
justice. In one point of view, they may be considered as corollaries from the principles already
laid down. If it is a duty to do to each acco(d-!
ng to his deserts, returning good for good as
well as repressing evil by evil, it necessarily fol.
lows that we should treat all equally well (when
no higher duty forbids) who have deserved
equally well of us, and that society should
treat all equally well who have deserved equally
well of it, that is, who have deserved equally
well absolutely.  This is the highest abstract




UTILITARIANISM.


147


standard of social and distributive justice;
towards which all institutions, and the efforts
of all virtuous citizens, should be made in the
utmost possible degree to converge. But this
great moral duty rests upon a still deeper foundation, being a direct emanation from the first
principle of morals, and not a mere logical corollary from secondary or derivative doctrines. It is
involved in the very meaning of Utility, or the
Greatest-Happiness Principle. That principle is
a mere form of words without rational signification, unless one person's happiness, supposed
equal in degree (with the proper allowance made
for kind), is counted for exactly as much as another's.   These conditions being supplies, Bentham's dictum, 'everybody to count for one,
nobody for more than one,' might be written
under the principle of utility as an explanatory
commentary.* The equal claim of everybody to
* This implication, in the first principle of the utilitarian
scheme, of perfect impartiality between persons, is regarded
by Mr. Herbert Spencer (in his Social Statics) as a disproof of
tlt pretentions of utility to be a sufficient guide to right; since
(he.says) the principle of utility presupposes the anterior
principle, that everybody has an equal right to happiness. It




148                 UTILITARIANISM.
happiness in the estimation of the moralist and
may be more correctly described as supposing that equal
amounts of happiness are equally desirable, whether felt by
the same or by different persons. This, however, is not a
p' esupposition; not a premise needful to support the principle
of utility, but the very principle itself; for what is the
principle of utility, if it be not that ' happiness' and 'desirable' are synonymous terms? If there is any anterior principle
imp)lied, it can be no other than this, that the truths of arith.
mitic are applicable to the valuation of happiness, as of all
other measurable quantities.
[Mr. Herbert Spencer, in a private communication on the
sulbject of the preceding Note, objects to being considered an
opponent of Utilitarianism, and states that he regards happiness as the ultimate end of morality; but deems that end only
partially attainable by empirical generalizations from the
observed results of conduct, and     completely  attainable
only by deducting, from the laws of life and the con.
ditions of existence, what kinds     of action  necessarily
tend to produce happiness, and what kinds to produce
unhappiness.  With the exception of the word ' necessarily,"
I have no dissent to express from this doctrine; and (omitting
that word) I am not aware that any modern advocate of
utilitarianism is of a different opinion. Bentham, certainly,
to whom in the Social Statics Mr. Spencer particularly
referred, is, least of all writers, chargeable with unwillingness
to deduce the effect of actions on happiness from the laws of
human nature and the universal conditions of human life.
The common charge against him is of relying too exclusively
upon such deductions, and declining altogether to be bound
by the generalizations from specific experience which Mr.
Spencer thinks that utilitarians generally confine themselves
to. My own opinion (and, as I collect, Mr. Spencer's) is, that
in ethics, as in all other branches of scientific study, the consilience of the result, of both these processes, each corroborating
and verifying the other, is requisite to give to any general
proposition the kind and degree of evidence which constitutes
scientific proof.]




UTILITARIANISM.


149


the legislator, involves an equal claim to all the
means of happiness, except in so far as the inevitable conditions of human life, and the general
interest, in which that of every individual is included, set limits to the maxim; and those limits
ought to be strictly construed. As every other
maxim of justice, so this, is by no means applied
or held applicable universally; on the contrary,
as I have already remarked, it bends to every
person's ideas of social expediency. But in
whatever case it is deemed applicable at all,
it is held to be the dictate of justice. All persons are deemed to have a right to equality of
treatment, except when some recognized social
expediency requires the reverse.  And hence
all social inequalities which have ceased to be
considered expedient, assume the character not
of simple inexpediency, but of injustice, and
appear so tyrannical, that people are apt
to wonder how they ever could have been
tolerated; forgetful that they themselves perhaps tolerate other inequalities under an
equally mistaken notion of expediency, the




150


UTILITARIANISM.


correction of which would make that which
they approve seem quite as monstrous as what
they have at last learnt to condemn. The
entire history of social improvement has been
a series of transitions, by which one custom or institution after another, from being a
supposed primary necessity of social existence,
has passed into the rank of an universally stigmatized injustice and tyranny. So it has been
with the distinctions of slaves and freemen,
nobles and serfs, patricians and plebians; and
so it will be, and in part already is, with the
aristocracies of color, race, and sex.
It appears from  what has been said, that
justice is a name for certain moral requirements,
which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the
scale of social utility, and are therefore of more
paramount obligation, than any others; though
particular cases may occur in which some other
social duty is so important, as to overrule any
one of the general maxims of justice. Thus, to
save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a
duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary




UTILITARIANISM.


151


food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to
officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner.
In such cases, as we do not call anything justice
which is not a virtue, we usually say, not that
justice must give way to some other moral
principle, but that what is just in ordinary
cases is, by reason of that other principle, not
just in the particular case. By this useful
accommodation of language, the character of
indefeasibility attributed to justice is kept
up, and we are saved from the necessity
of maintaining that there can be laudable injustice.
The considerations which have now been
adduced resolve, I conceive, the only real difficulty in the utilitarian theory of morals. It has
always been evident that all cases of justice are
also cases of expediency: the difference is in the
peculiar sentiment which attaches to the former,
as contradistinguished from the latter. If this
characteristic sentiment has been sufficiently
accounted for; if there is no necessity to assume
for it any peculiarity of origin; if it is simply




152


UTILITARIANISM.


the natural feeling of resentment, moralized by
bIeing made coextensive with the demands of
social good; and if this feeling not only does but
ought to exist in all the classes of cases to which
the idea of justice corresponds; that idea no
longer presents itself as a stumbling-block to the
utilitarian ethics. Justice remains the appropriate name for certain social utilities which are
vastly more important, and therefore more absolute and imperative, than any others are as a
class (though not more so than others may be in
particular cases); and which, therefore, ought to
be, as well as naturally are, guarded by a sentiment not only different in degree, but also in
kind; distinguished from the milder feeling
which attaches to the mere idea of promoting
human pleasure or convenience, at once by the
more definite nature of its commands, and by the
sterner character of its sanctions.


THE END.