Page:Philosophical Review Volume 20.djvu/244

230 of him are really for his own highest good. An extensive 'mythology' is thus developed, which has been fostered by both religion and philosophy. The choicest product is the metaphysical conception of duty a universal obligation voicing itself as an autocratic command, though the obligation is without motive and the authority is without force.

But the task of morality is really incapable of fulfillment. The conflict will not down. The consequence is that morality is a mass of shifting contradictions. It is at all times full of outright immoralities—exaggerations which are directly prejudicial to social welfare. Every 'virtue' is such an exaggeration, not to be logically distinguished from a vice. On the other hand, all manner of vices are essential to the very existence of society. Morality pretends to be eternal. It lags behind the march of events. When human needs have finally succeeded in modifying its standards, newer needs have already become urgent. What, then, should be the attitude of the educated man toward moral questions? One of irony—that is to say, of sophisticated detachment. He should know too much to be a partisan or to share a partisan's enthusiasm. "He will play the game while admitting that his adversary may win it, and that that will doubtless not overthrow the order of the world. He will play his best and strive for the victory; but he will perhaps also be on his guard against presumptive joys and bitter disillusionments" (p. 163).

This volume, written to advance the cause of universal peace, is not without interest to the mere theorist. It discusses an important phase of the confusion between organic and social evolution which was so characteristic of the sociology of the generation that followed Darwin, and which is widely prevalent to-day.

The term 'social Darwinism' is used to denote the theory that social evolution is due to the struggle for existence between social groups, known as war; or, as the author epigrammatically defines it in the opening sentence, "the doctrine which considers collective homicide to be the cause of the progress of mankind." He finds that it is shared by the vast majority of educated men, and is especially popular among men of political influence; and the whole of the volume is devoted to its systematic demolishment.

The work as a whole is admirably done. The mass of fallacies contained in the pseudo-Darwinistic view are untangled and laid bare with rare thoroughness and skill. The style is, if anything, too simple for controversial success, I mean. The errors criticised are made to seem so obviously foolish, that the reader is often led to wonder whether the opponents are fairly treated; and indeed I think that in several instances they might have a good deal to say for themselves. But controversial fairness aside, Novicow's treatment of