Page:Philosophical Review Volume 4.djvu/21

5 concerned for the continuance of society, rather than for individuals, who have their day and cease to be. Hence the old antagonism between the good of society and the good of the individual assumes a new form, of which we may give briefly an example. Von Hartmann, leaning to the organic conception of society, and referring to crime and its punishment, says: "As society is of more consequence than any criminal, so is the protection of society of more consequence than the moral and social discipline of the criminal. Hence this discipline is a secondary object, to be pursued only so long as it does not conflict with the preservation of society"; although in justice to von Hartmann it should be added that for him cases of hopeless conflict are exceptional. Mr. Bradley, too, with Darwinism in his mind, and having in view 'the welfare of the state,' regards capital punishment as a 'terrible necessity.' Waiving the right to discuss the validity of these conclusions in the matter of the crimes of individuals, and waiving even the right to discuss whether any crime can properly be called private, we may ask if this method of treating offenders, which admittedly grows out of the organic conception of society, is satisfactory in the case of crimes pronounced by every one to be collective or organized, such, e.g., as anarchy. Undoubtedly the state, to be truly operative, must protect the citizens from violence by the necessary suppression. But the breach of the law by anarchists is the logical consequence of their belief that the whole system of law and the whole structure of society are wrong at their foundations. This belief cannot be quelled by an exhibition of uniform, since such an expression of authority has for anarchists no significance. The struggle can be closed only by each side ceasing to contend for its own preservation at any hazard, and showing a willingness to criticise the value of the principles which it is seeking to uphold. Such