IS NOT THE PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION RATIONAL?
[TO TEE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR,"]
have read with much interest your notices of "Social Evolution," in the Spectator of July 28th, and agree with you in refusing to accept Mr. Kidd's statement that "there is no rational sanction for the conditions of progress." Mr. Kidd rejects the idea that "altruism" has been evolved,—believing that it is due solely to revelation. If, however, it can be shown that in the beginnings of society the principle existed in rudiment, then from the evolutionist's standpoint much is gained. For the birth of "altruism" we must turn to the evolution of the family. The parental care for offspring will readily be granted to be natural. Further, although selfish- ness was one of the main factors in the development of society, still societies could not have cohered without "altruism." There has been a ceaseless war between selfish- ness and "altruism," the former being fostered by the spirit of militarism through which society passed ; but, with advancing civilisation and the rise of agriculture, "altruism" was slowly and grandly elevated by the religions of the world until the great principle of the brotherhood of man was evolved. Butler, in the "Analogy," alluding to reason, states it is "the only faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even revelation itself." Society, as Mr. Kidd has shown, is judging between selfishness and "altruism ;" and, moreover, a reasonalde justice is gradually teaching how to equilibrate the opposing forces.—I am,
Previous page
