Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/181

 ETHICS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS 167

peculiarity. Thus, to take the example we have mentioned, if the critic has no regard for what he, individually, with his own personal peculiarities, most desires, but considers solely what form of welfare, looked at from the highest ethical standpoint, would be most suitable to the individuals concerned, and which would indeed be most acceptable to them were they properly informed, an objective opinion is given.

From the utilitarian standpoint, then, there are two stand- points from which any given society may be declared to be irrationally organized or directed. It may either be alleged that it fails to provide for a possible happiness of a considerable number of its individual members, according to the standard which they set up ; or it may be claimed that, though it may provide a possible happiness to all according to their own stand- ards, it yet fails to provide that intellectual and ethical develop- ment which is necessary to secure the formation of better ideals. It is easily possible for a given social regime to be held delin- quent upon either or both of these counts.

It will be noticed that care has been taken in the foregoing to make use of the phrase "possible happiness." The propriety of this is obvious. A social regime cannot be held responsible for unhappiness due to the willful misconduct of a sufferer ; as, for example, where one, either by failing to make use of the opportunities fairly presented to him, or by deliberately select- ing the more evil of two courses or refusing to sacrifice a present pleasure for a greater good, has brought harm upon himself. In passing judgment upon the rationality of a regime as to its effects upon individuals, the question is thus not as to what number of individuals are unsuccessful and miserable, but as to what number are so because of the existence of that regime. Where failures are due to personal faults or failings, and not to circumstances over which the individuals have no control, there is reaped only that which has been sown, and social conditions cannot be indicted for the result.

What has been said regarding the necessity of framing a social ideal before it is possible to pass a judgment upon any given regime implies two facts which Kidd, and many others,