The Principles of Ethics, Vol 1

by Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was an English philosopher, best known for his scientific writings. Together with Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley he was responsible for the acceptance of the theory of evolution. His well-known essay on Intellectual, Moral and Physical was considered one of the most useful and profound books written on education. He projected a vast 10-volume work, Synthetic Philosophy, in which all phenomena are interpreted according to the principle of evolutionary progress. Although no longer influential in biology, his extension of his theory of evolution to psychology and sociology remains important. His "Social Darwinism" was particularly influential on early evolutionary economists such as Thorstein Veblen. As subeditor of the Economist (1843-53), Spencer was an influential exponent of laissez-faire. His early book Social Statics (1851) was strongly tinged with an individualistic outlook.

Genres: Philosophy

592 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1897

About the author

Herbert Spencer was an English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era.

Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did." As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, literature, biology, sociology, and psychology. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. "The only other English philosopher to have achieved anything like such widespread popularity was Bertrand Russell, and that was in the 20th century." Spencer was "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century" but his influence declined sharply after 1900; "Who now reads Spencer?" asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.

Spencer is best known for coining the expression "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.

Reviews

[Otto Lehto · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Principles of Ethics is sadly neglected (and partially empirically falsified), but also wildly important and inspiring piece of utilitarian, naturalistic, systematic philosophy. It rocks.

Spencer builts up a monumental theory of "evolutionary ethics" which strives to provide a naturalistic alternative, and complement, to the prevailing ethical theories of the day (including religious ethics and Benthamite utilitarianism). He espouses a form of "rational utilitarianism", where humanity is to take the maximal adaptation of human functioning to the prevailing natural and social conditions as the best means towards general happiness. His theory is rich, inspiring and humanistic. True, it is also occasionally outdated and cruel, but these aspects can be safely ignored without jettisoning the whole project. We fail to do so at our own peril.

He thinks that human behaviour, psychology, emotional life, moral code (sets of norms) and social institutions are aspects of our animal constitution, designed - unconsciously or consciously - to provide sufficient adaptation to the relevant sociological and anthropological conditions of existence. Even the brutal, murderous and positively Unchristian norms and practices of savages (of which he provides ample documentation) serve some function of allowing the tribe to survive in a harsh environment. That is why the warrior morality of militaristic societies is so prevalent in human history. But he doesn't believe in cultural relativism, far from it: he believes that there is an ideal type of human existence that all progress veers towards, and which must be taken as the goal post of institutitonal design. He believes that the advanced societies have moved significantly closer to the satisfaction of ethical ideals, because they have have adopted principles of peaceful and harmonious cooperation - the principles of classical liberalim and of the industrial society - which enables human beings to benefit from each other's ambition and projects. The ideal end goal consists of the full adaptation of human behaviour towards the simultaneous satisfaction of the happiness of themselves (egoism) and the happiness of other human beings (altruism).

Despite a few theoretical shortcomings (see more below), I believe that Spencer is still fundamentally right (about most things), and I believe that his effort to justify a rational synthesis of egoism and altruism, founded on a naturalistic sense of human flourishing, is a promising research program for the 21st century. It is no accident that someone like E.O. Wilson considers Herbert Spencer a great forebear of sociobology. Spencer's work been unjustly lampooned as "social darwinistic" (with all the nasty connotations that the word has), even though his system is really a plea for a free society of harmoniously cooperating people for mutual benefit. He provides a solid philosophical grounding to a modern conception of humanity that is responsive to, and provides the fodder for, the capabilities of an advanced industrial society. His system enables human beings to function together without tearing each other to pieces. We need to let go of our old-fashioned, atavistic and destructive intuitions, customs and beliefs. With Spencer, we can see ideal ethical theory as consisting of ways of shaping human behaviour, through competition and industriousness, towards full adaptation to the positive-sum game of global cooperation. The evolutionary perspective, when stripped of its Lamarckian strappings and reformulated into neo-Darwinian language, offers a ladder towards higher and higher realms of social flourishing.

This project is a beautiful undertaking, and it is surprisingly humanistic, progressive and compassionate. Despite Spencer's reputation, he was a gentle and peaceful soul. His work, although very occasionally veering towards cold-heartedness and Malthusian skepticism, is coloured by fierce and unwavering opposition to militarism, colonialism, imperialism, haughty white chauvinism, Christian hypocrisy and other forms of "God Save the Queen" prejudice.

The work suffers from one severe problem, which is Spencer's reliance on outdated science, namely Lamarckian conceptions of evolution. He believes that human beings, simply by being exposed to new environmental conditions, will naturally tend to adapt to those conditions, and will naturally tend to produce offspring that are better suited to live in those conditions. He believes in the so-called inheritance of acquired characteristics, which has been largely discredited by later evolutionary science (although not completely: see the neo-Lamarckian emergence in later years).

Spencer's nurture-led conception of evolution leads him to have an over-optimistic view of the capacity of human biology to adapt to sociological progress, since he believes that biology will naturally tend to change, and produce required changes, as long as external conditions provide the relevant stimuli. But from a Darwinian perspective this is not warranted: and today, if we only look around, we see a lot of atavistic traits that have no intention of going away. Sadly! Our ancient biology still dominates human action and psychology. Our biology, alas, hasn't quite caught up with the fact of our rapid sociological progress. Spencer acknowledges this, but believes, mistakenly, that "full adaptation" is just around the corner. He doesn't see that this would require biological adaptation, but biological adaptation has become almost moot in a rich society. This faith in humanity also paradoxically leads him to have an overharsh and draconian estimation of procreation: he believes that the children of miserable parents will tend to be miserable, and so he discourages "inferior children" from being born and supported by the state. He openly favours the reproduction of "superior" men and women, and laments the degeneration of the race. He believes that the cycle of misery and stupidity needs to be stopped, for the sake of the public good, and, out of misguided paternalistic humanism, he adopts the most logical means that his Lamarckian system of evolutionary ethics recommends, for increasing human welfare, happiness and intelligence. His version of Malthusian ethics is actually a form of humanistic paternalism. But it should be emphasized that he doesn't wish to regulate birth control beyond the negative command of laissez-faire: he still remains a libertarian, even if his ethics ultimately favours eugenics.

The monumental length of the work - 1100 pages in two volumes - might justifiably put off many people. The megalomaniac project of providing a complete theory of ethics, which is supposed to provide tools of good living both in matters large and small - in public life and in private - can be lampooned for its 19th century optimism and lack of modesty. The first volume, it is true, contains a lot of stuff that is hardly essential or new. A lot of the chapters deal with rather mundane issues or are otherwise padded out with all sorts of musings and anthropological minutiae. But the sharp novelty and mad ambition of Spencer's theory sheds light on all of these different aspects, so the stylistic detour through the everyday, the everyman and the expected is warranted. In the end, the capacity of Spencer's theory to provide interesting observations on all aspects of human life much overshadows the inevitable failure of his totalitarian system for providing closure and full solace.

[Nency · Rating 2 out of 5]

How to download ..this book?

[J.D. Steens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spencer's aim with this volume is simple enough. He wants to base ethics on the principles of evolutionary biology. His theme is that there is a progression to evolution where cooperation increases to the point where the freedom of one is compatable with the freedom of all. This necessarily involves self-restriction based on the recognition that increased paralysis ensues if each does what one wants.

Spencer arrives at this conclusion through the explanation of biological motivation. Good and bad are based on what is agreeable and disagreeable. The body tells us, in other words, what is right and what is wrong, and self-interest (egoism) is the ultimate principle of conduct. That self-oriented standard becomes a problem for others and social order so Spencer argues that individuals and societies increasingly merge altruistic behavior with egoism. Spencer's reasoning is that we come to realize that our private good depends on the good of others to pursue what is agreeable and to avoid that which is disagreeable. In this way, Spencer bases general happiness on private happiness and thereby provides utilitarian (general happiness) on biological foundations. Spencer believes that this conciliation between egoism and altruisdm occurs because altruism increasingly becomes an end in itself, not just a means to one's own egoistic happiness (this is where some Lamarkian theory creaps into Spencer's thining). In time, Spencer believes this leads to an overall decline in aggressiveness and an increase in sympathy, and altruistic pleasure becomes a higher-order egoistic pleasure to the point where a permanent peace can be achieved.

Throughout this volume Spencer puts forward key insights. The emotional basis for altruism begins with parents and it's this foundation that gets extended to the broader world and provides the emotional foundation for the intellectual recognition that one's own (egoistic) welfare depends on the general public's good. Spencer writes at length about the distinction between group mutuality (amnity) and out of group situations (emnity), and acknowledges that certain practices such as murder and deception are regarded as a virtue in the former but as a vice in the latter. Love thy neighbor might apply only to our group, not human kind, in other words. Spencer is also very good at the sanctions that are employed to keep egoism in check within one's group - fear of the leader, fear of social reprimand, and fear of the divine.

Elsewhere, here and there, Spencer reminds us that he is a product of this time. He's comfortable with dividing humankind into superior and inferior classes and sees "Negroes" as having no capacity for mercy, pity or compassion. Despite these flaws, Spencer writes clearly and makes an honest attempt to place his ethical theory on a solid biological footing. Where he goes wrong is that he classifies all humans as the same. This allows him to argue that all humans evenutally come to merge egoism and altruism, and this is where he arrives at his progressive view of evolution that leads to a peaceful and just society. That assessment is optimistic and I think wrong. The egoist drive is just too strong for much of humanity and that energy intensity is such that egoistic will, not voluntary restriction of self in deference to the other, will always be a problem. Some degree of external restraint and force, as opposed to a natural evolution toward "the good," will always be necessary.