bad may be different: those who are good under the old may be bad under the new ideal, and conversely a person who before was ranked as a criminal may perhaps find grace under a new scheme of society. The line of demarcation of good from evil is drawn differently, just as in the course of political history, while the sentiments of the whole mass constantly expand, the dividing lines of parties shift, as the more timid or less adventurous members of the party of change fall behind and join those whose temperament inclines them to be suspicious of innovation. Consider how this change in the incidence of moral distinction arises. Every moral ideal is one for the whole society, pre-supposing differentiations of functions among its members, and also tolerating and utilising those distinctions of gifts and development, or generally perfection, which constitute differences of merit. The new ideal is one in which there will be distinctions of the

same kind. But in the attempt to impress itself on the society, it will find some persons unequal to the new requirements, though equal to the former. They do not move fast enough, or are too unimpressible to become sensible of the change, and falling therefore outside the new ideal, representing in their persons an ideal which is not an instance of it, they are condemned as bad. There is, therefore, a kind of circularity in the process by which the moral ideal changes: the standard of good is that which is established, but at the same time only those are good who adopt it. The establishment of the new ideal depends on a process which at the same time determines what persons are to be considered good, that is to say, what types of character are compatible with it. The character which before was not too weak to be good may now drop into the class of the bad. It is as if the new ideal were carried by a unanimous vote, but by depriving of the franchise all who are inclined to vote against it. If fifty men are seeking to arrange a compromise, and five of them resist any change, the

arrangement must be made independently of the latter, who will be treated afterwards according as they obey or resist it. The apparent circularity only represents the fact of the success of the reform. If the persons now condemned were still to be accounted good, there would be no equilibrium, for there would be no assured victory. Suppose a number of rods jointed together in a complex arrangement, so as still to remain movable upon the joints, like the pieces of those machines by which skeins of wool are wound, or of the light framework used to conceal flower-pots. If we alter the position of some of the rods the rest will change position too, but some of them may in consequence be so strained that the joints break, and an adjustment can be effected only by discarding some of the pieces and joining afresh. The figure may illustrate the process by which as the ideal of good changes the incidence of its distinction from evil varies too.

6. (c.) The Struggle of Varieties.-Reasoning from the establishment of a conscious reform, we may conclude that, where the change is effected gradually by a number of persons who act upon their feelings without knowing the whole. aim or bearing of their conduct, the process is of the same character as where a reformer initiates a reflective scheme. In both cases alike the change depends on the wills of all the society, and the outcome of the process therefore represents a compromise or adjustment of them, in which some inevitably go to the wall. The compromise is not a process of deliberation in which persons meet together to set their views against one another, though such reflective action may enter into the process, but is effected by a conquest of the new scheme over the old. The new scheme represents an adjustment of society under its new conditions, but is not itself produced by adjustment. But the reason why it prevails is because it represents the modus vivendi of the society; or the position of equili

brium which would be completely realised if all the society were good.

7. By having constantly before our eyes the action of parliaments we might be misled into supposing the new ideal to be definable as merely the will of the majority. It certainly has the majority on its side, for the good is that which has come to predominate. But while it must have the majority on its side, if it is to prevail, its possession of a majority is nothing but the fact of its prevalence. The ground of its prevalence is that it represents the equilibrium, and is therefore the only arrangement that can subsist under the conditions. Hence it attracts the greater forces to its cause. These forces are of all kinds-forces of character, and of intelligence, which range through many degrees of perfection, from the strong to the feeble, from the hard, cold, and unemotional to the sympathetic and impulsive, from the sagacious intelligence with quick insight into the needs of mankind to what is often strongest of all, the dead weight of impenetrable stupidity.1 Decision by majorities is, in fact, merely an expedient of civilised societies, to determine which way the forces pull, and to avoid the primitive procedure of actual force. "We count heads," as Sir J. F. Stephen says, "in order to save the trouble. of breaking them." In a low stage of society the decisive force is that of arms, and riot and violence are the means of victory. In a higher stage we use the milder instrument of the voting-urn. But even here, as in the case of a civil war or armed revolution, the more refined and elevated forces of society may sometimes be reduced to the lower denomination of actual physical strength. There is thus no virtue in the mere preponderance of numbers: it is not that reforms follow the majority, but that a

1 Goethe after a panegyric on the character of Englishmen, added, "That they are also sometimes complete fools I allow with all my heart: but that is still something, and has still some weight in the scale of nature" (Conversations with Eckermann, translated by Oxenford, p. 317).

U

Truth and

Voting is

majority is attracted by a suitable reform. goodness begin in general with a minority. thus only a means of discovering the balance of forces, and when it is determined on which side the balance lies, the result is accepted by the loyal opponent as binding upon himself, and he 'likes' it, not because he would not himself prefer something else, but because under the circumstances it is right.

8. The growth of a new ideal is analogous to the growth of a new species in the organic world. According to the generally accepted view, a new species is produced through giving rise to variations which struggle with one another and with the parent species. One of these varieties, in virtue of some natural advantage, is successful over its opponents, and in virtue of this success it produces offspring and overruns the region within. which the species was found. The term 'struggle' is thus only a loose term, which does not imply that there has always been an actual combat: and the extirpation of the unsuccessful variety does not necessarily mean that it has fallen a prey to the successful. Sometimes the

survival of a variety is due to its being able to escape or conceal itself from the superior forces from exposure to which the other varieties are not able to save themselves.

In the light of this process we may contrast the good and bad in any one age as different varieties of one and the same original ideal. All good men, so far as good, represent ideals which are the individual members of one variety represented by the good ideal: their various degrees of perfection correspond to more or less strong, or swift, or big members of the animal species. All bad men, so far as bad, act upon ideals which form other varieties. There is the variety of thieves, of murderers, and the like. The distinction of good and bad corresponds to the domination of one variety, that of the good, which has come to prevail according to the process described in virtue of its being a social equilibrium. Its

being a social equilibrium corresponds to the natural advantage of the successful animal variety, for this natural advantage is nothing more than suitability to all its conditions of life. The good ideal, then, has been created by a struggle of ideals in which it has predominated. Evil is simply that which has been rejected and defeated in the struggle with the good.

9. This struggle has taken place with all the other varieties and the original species itself, and the victory, as in natural history, has been largely achieved over those who are likest itself, that is, the original species. Hence, what we find if we take badness in any stage of morality is, that it is made up partly of conduct which is a survival from a former condition, like piracy or private justice, partly of other conduct which was devised. by persons in the endeavour to change their way of life, other modifications, that is, of the specific idea which have succumbed to the prevailing variety. Putting logs or stones across the rails to wreck a train came in with the railway; and with the use of sulphuric acid in the arts and in healing came in the sacrilege against the human form of vitriol-throwing. But murder and lying and theft are a damnosa hereditas left us from a time when they were legitimate institutions: when it was honourable to kill all but members of the clan, or to lie without scruple to gain an end, and when there was promiscuity of property. But these obsolete forms of goodness share in their turn in the inventiveness of evil, and become more subtle and refined by appropriating to their use the devices struck out by men in the effort after fresh goodness. The murderer may use the beneficent skill of the chemist to kill by poisons which leave no trace; when in the organisation of commerce the system of banking arises, with its delicate responsibilities, the banker may rob his clients by investing their money in hazardous speculation; or when the impersonal duty to truth is acknowledged, the man of science who would