the man versus the state-第23章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


are　among　those　factors　which；　beyond　the　effects　directly　produced；　have　countless　other　effects　of　multitudinous　kinds。　As　I　heard　remarked　by　a　distinguished　professor；　whose　studies　give　ample　means　of　judging　　〃When　once　you　begin　to　interfere　with　the　order　of　Nature　there　is　no　knowing　where　the　results　will　end。〃　And　if　this　is　true　of　that　sub…human　order　of　Nature　to　which　he　referred；　still　more　is　it　true　of　that　order　of　Nature　existing　in　the　social　arrangements　produced　by　aggregated　human　beings。　　　　　　And　now　to　carry　home　the　conclusion　that　the　legislator　should　bring　to　his　business　a　vivid　consciousness　of　these　and　other　such　broad　truths　concerning　the　human　society　with　which　he　proposes　to　deal；　let　me　present　somewhat　more　fully　one　of　them　not　yet　mentioned。　

The　continuance　of　every　higher　species　of　creature　depends　on　conformity；　now　to　one；　now　to　the　other；　of　two　radically…opposed　principles。　The　early　lives　of　its　members；　and　the　adult　lives　of　its　members；　have　to　be　dealt　with　in　contrary　ways。　We　will　contemplate　them　in　their　natural　order。　　　　　　One　of　the　most　familiar　facts　is　that　animals　of　superior　types；　comparatively　slow　in　reaching　maturity；　are　enabled　when　they　have　reached　it；　to　give　more　aid　to　their　offspring　than　animals　of　inferior　types。　The　adults　foster　their　young　during　periods　more　or　less　prolonged；　while　yet　the　young　are　unable　to　provide　for　themselves；　and　it　is　obvious　that　maintenance　of　the　species　can　be　secured　only　by　a　parental　care　adjusted　to　the　need　consequent　on　imperfection。　It　requires　no　proving　that　the　blind　unfledged　hedge…bird；　or　the　young　puppy　even　after　it　has　acquired　sight；　would　forthwith　die　if　it　had　to　keep　itself　warm　and　obtain　its　own　food。　The　gratuitous　parental　aid　must　be　great　in　proportion　as　the　young　one　is　of　little　worth；　either　to　itself　or　to　others；　and　it　may　diminish　as　fast　as；　by　increasing　development；　the　young　one　acquires　worth；　at　first　for　self…sustentation；　and　by…and…by　for　sustentation　of　others。　That　is　to　say；　during　immaturity；　benefits　received　must　be　inversely　as　the　power　or　ability　of　the　receiver。　Clearly　if　during　this　first　part　of　life　benefits　were　proportioned　to　merits；　or　rewards　to　deserts；　the　species　would　disappear　in　a　generation。　　　　　　From　this　regime　of　the　family…group；　let　us　turn　to　the　regime　of　that　larger　group　formed　by　the　adult　members　of　the　species。　Ask　what　happens　when　the　new　individual；　acquiring　complete　use　of　its　powers　and　ceasing　to　have　parental　aid；　is　left　to　itself。　Now　there　comes　into　play　a　principle　just　the　reverse　of　that　above　described。　Throughout　the　rest　of　its　life；　each　adult　gets　benefit　in　proportion　to　merit　　reward　in　proportion　to　desert：　merit　and　desert　in　each　case　being　understood　as　ability　to　fulfil　all　the　requirements　of　life　to　get　food；　to　secure　shelter；　to　escape　enemies。　Placed　in　competition　with　members　of　its　own　species　and　in　antagonism　with　members　of　other　species；　it　dwindles　and　gets　killed　off；　or　thrives　and　propagates；　according　as　it　is　ill…endowed　or　well…endowed。　Manifestly　an　opposite　regime；　could　it　be　maintained；　would；　in　course　of　time；　be　fatal　to　the　species。　If　the　benefits　received　by　each　individual　were　proportionate　to　its　inferiority　　if；　as　a　consequence；　multiplication　of　the　inferior　was　furthered　and　multiplication　of　the　superior　hindered；　progressive　degradation　would　result；　and　eventually　the　degenerate　species　would　fail　to　hold　its　ground　in　presence　of　antagonistic　species　and　competing　species。　　　　　　The　broad　fact　then；　here　to　be　noted；　is　that　Nature's　modes　of　treatment　inside　the　family…group　and　outside　the　family…group；　are　diametrically　opposed　to　one　another；　and　that　the　intrusion　of　either　mode　into　the　sphere　of　the　other；　would　be　fatal　to　the　species　either　mediately　or　remotely。　　　　　　Does　any　one　think　that　the　like　does　not　hold　of　the　human　species？　He　cannot　deny　that　within　the　human　family；　as　within　any　inferior　family；　it　would　be　fatal　to　proportion　benefits　to　merits。　Can　he　assert　that　outside　the　family；　among　adults；　there　should　not　be　a　proportioning　of　benefits　to　merits？　Will　he　contend　that　no　mischief　will　result　if　the　lowly　endowed　are　enabled　to　thrive　and　multiply　as　much　as；　or　more　than；　the　highly　endowed？　A　society　of　men；　standing　towards　other　societies　in　relations　of　either　antagonism　or　competition；　may　be　considered　as　a　species；　or；　more　literally；　as　a　variety　of　a　species；　and　it　must　be　true　of　it　as　of　other　species　or　varieties；　that　it　will　be　unable　to　hold　its　own　in　the　struggle　with　other　societies；　if　it　disadvantages　its　superior　units　that　it　may　advantage　its　inferior　units。　Surely　none　can　fail　to　see　that　were　the　principle　of　family　life　to　be　adopted　and　fully　carried　out　in　social　life　were　reward　always　great　in　proportion　as　desert　was　small；　fatal　results　to　the　society　would　quickly　follow；　and　if　so；　then　even　a　partial　intrusion　of　the　family　regime　into　the　regime　of　the　State；　will　be　slowly　followed　by　fatal　results。　Society　in　its　corporate　capacity；　cannot　without　mediate　or　remoter　disaster　interfere　with　the　play　of　these　opposed　principles　under　which　every　species　has　reached　such　fitness　for　its　mode　of　life　as　it　possesses；　and　under　which　it　maintains　that　fitness。　　　　　　I　say　advisedly　　society　in　its　corporate　capacity：　not　intending　to　exclude　or　condemn　aid　given　to　the　inferior　by　the　superior　in　their　individual　capacities。　Though　when　given　so　indiscriminately　as　to　enable　the　inferior　to　multiply；　such　aid　entails　mischief；　yet　in　the　absence　of　aid　given　by　society；　individual　aid；　more　generally　demanded　than　now；　and　associated　with　a　greater　sense　of　responsibility；　would；　on　the　average；　be　given　with　the　effect　of　fostering　the　unfortunate　worthy　rather　than　the　innately　unworthy：　there　being　always；　too；　the　concomitant　social　benefit　arising　from　culture　of　the　sympathies。　But　all　this　may　be　admitted　while　asserting　that　the　radical　distinction　between　family…ethics　and　State…ethics　must　be　maintained；　and　that　while　generosity　must　be　the　essential　principle　of　the　one；　justice　must　be　the　essential　principle　of　the　other　　a　rigorous　maintenance　of　those　normal　relations　among　citizens　under　which　each　gets　in　return　for　his　labour；　skilled　or　unskilled；　bodily　or　mental；　as　much　as　is　proved　to　be　its　value　by　the　demand　for　it：　such　return；　therefore；　as　will　enable　him　to　thrive　and　rear　offspring　in　proportion　to　the　superiorities　which　make　him　valuable　to　himself　and　others。　　　　　　And　yet；　notwithstanding　the　conspicuousness　of　these　truths；　which　should　strike　every　one　who　leaves　his　lexicons；　and　his　law　deeds；　and　his　ledgers；　and　looks　abroad　into　that　natural　order　of　things　under　which　we　exist；　and　to　which　we　must　conform；　there　is　continual　advocacy　of　paternal　government。　The　intrusion　of　family…ethics　into　the　ethics　of　the　State；　instead　of　being　regarded　as　socially　injurious；　is　more　and　more　demanded　as　the　only　efficient　means　to　social　benefit。　So　far　has　this　delusion　now　gone；　that　it　vitiates　the　beliefs　of　those　who　might；　more　than　all　others；　be　thought　safe　from