Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/697

 THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL NIETZSCHEISM 683

"act externally in such a manner that the free exercise of thy will maybe able to coexist with the freedom of all others"? Finally, what reason is there for observing the formula of social justice as framed by Herbert Spencer namely, "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man"? Why should not the weak suffer and be driven to the wall, and the strong or cunning "divide the earth"? Why should mankind set up a process different from the cosmic process, and recognize a moral and legal equality where there is no physical equality ? The real obstacle to the steady improvement of the race is found in the "slave ethics" of modern codes and practice, in the practice of benevolence. Charity is not a virtue, but a blunder and a handi- cap. Might alone is right, and instead of the greatest good of all, or even of the greatest number, the guiding principle of the enlightened "blonde beast" should be the greatest freedom, pleasure, and welfare of the most vigorous and intelligent.

This is Nietzscheism in a nutshell. It is the code of the over-man, who has gone "beyond good and evil," and to whom the civilization founded on Hebraic and Christian ideals seems one long series of perversions of nature. Nietzsche did not contemplate the dissolution of civil society ; he did not desire or expect perpetual internecine strife and confusion. He simply declined to admit that what we call justice and generosity are natural, spontaneous products essential to the preservation of society. He believed that, while it was perfectly expedient and proper for men really tqual and intelligent to cooperate instead of fighting one another, it was sentimental folly to surrender anything to the mentally or physically inferior who lacked the power to assert their claims. Egoism untrammeled, and not altruism, was to him the indispensable condition of gradual ascent of the race.

Now, as already remarked above, there is no danger what- ever of the open acceptance of the Nietzsche philosophy by any considerable number of persons. It is too extreme, too para- doxical, too violent. It is based on a radically defective defini- tion of human nature, and, though claiming to be strictly