DARWIN FIFTY YEARS AFTER.

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18651, 1 June 1932, Page 9

DARWIN FIFTY YEARS AFTER.

fessor Huxley -as showing what an amazingly false notion it was to attempt .to apply the ethics o-f evolution to our social -life. I quote from memory as it is over 30 years since I saw Huxley’s written words. Incidentally they have been to me a basic principle ever since I read them, enabling me to consider most social problems in -the light of .them. Professor Huxley said:—“There is another fallacy which appears to me to pervade the so-called -ethics -of evolution. It is the notion that because on the whole animals -and plants have advanced in perfection of organisation by means of -the struggle for existence, and consequent -survival of the fittest, therefore men in society, men as ethical beings, must look -to the same process to help them; I suspect that this* fallacy arises from the unfortunate ambiquity of the term, ‘ -survival -of the fittest.’ Fittest has a connotation of best, a.nd about best, there hangs a moral flavour. But, the practice -of -that which is ethically best, what we call -goodness, -or virtue, Involves a 11ns of conduct which, in all respects is opposed [to that which leads -to success in the'cosmic struggle for existence- In place of ruthless self-assertion, it demands ■s-e-lf-restraint. Instead of thrusting •aside and treading down -all -competitors, it demands that every man must not only -respect, but -help his fellows. It repudiates altogether -the (gladiatorial theory of existence, and demands that every man who -enters Into t-he enjoyment of a pbll-ty shall be mindful of his debt to -those who have -laboriously constructed it, and shall take heed that no act of his weaken the fabric in which he is permitted to iive. It is from neglect -of these plain considerations -that the fanatic-al Individual of our times attempts to -apply -the analogy of cismoc nature to society.” -May I say that during the last 30 years. I have quoted this’ closely--reasoned statement -of Professor Huxley’s to scores of “ fanatical individualists,” but I have not as yet met the man who attempted to combat Huxley’s assertions. The most I have got from them has been “ Did- Huxley say that?” and a walk away, or, “What a rigmarole, Sykes; come and have a spot.” There is no reasonable reply to Professor Huxley's (statement, and the conclusions to be -drawn from It are irresistible. I -had written the foregoing before reading Mr Seymour’s letter in a this evening’s Times. Foj no -apparent reason but sheer cussedness he -introduces my name into his letter. Mr Seymour says: “If you cannot swim and get into the middle of -the Waikato River, you will infallibly drown—the river will not consider for one moment .whether you ave a fugitive from justice, or saving a drowning child. (This matter has caused much perplexity and indignation to my friend Mr Sykes).” It certainly does perplex me to know how a man who cannot swim might get -into the middle of- the Waikato -Rover' in an -effort to save' life, but I -should certainly not show indignation at what might be deemed an -act of self-sacriflce. If Mr Seymour intended -to say that I am perplexed, and indignant, that any human being should be so callous as to advocat-e the application o-f nature’s cruel .laws (to poc-lety, then -he <ls quite right. The answer to the hellish theory advocated by Mr Seymour Is in the above quotation from Professor Huxley, but I -have no hope that Mr Seymour will discern the truth in Huxley’s statement. Many years ago Car-lyle wrote as follows:—“Jesting Pilate asked what is Truth? Jesting Pilate had not the smallest -chance of ascertaining what i-s Truth. He -could -not have known it if a God had shown it to him. Thick, serene opacity veiled -those smiling eyes -of -his to Truth.” There are a few “ Jesting Pilates ” on the earth.—l am, etc., JOHN SYKES. •Hamilton, May 30, 1932.

(To the Editor.! Sir, —I read with interest the subleader on the above in the Waikato Times some days ago. I am not concerned to write about Darwin s theory in relation to cosmic: nature, but your article recalled to my mind the fact that Darwin’s theory of -the struggle for existence, and consequent survival of the fittest in respect' to cosmic nature, appealed to the rabid individualists of that period as being a splendid excuse for their individualistic theories of social organisation, lienee arose the hateful notion Unit everything was of the host possible under a policy of competition and survival of the llttesl. Men like John Bright, Cob-den, and thousands of others insisted that there must he no interference with (heir working little children long hours for a mean pittance; they fought bitterly all Factory Acts passed to ameliorate the condition of the workers; they claimed that nature’s -law could not he evaded. There are still tens of thousands who think flic same; many it ’is sad to think pro- I fessing Christians as were Cohdcn and } Bright. Willi your permission, sir. I will | Hive a rather long quotation from Pro- j - i