Darwinism in morals, and other essays : reprinted from the Theological and Fortnightly reviews, Fraser's and Macmillan's magazines, and the Manchester Friend / by Frances Power Cobbe.

  • Frances Power Cobbe
Date:
1872
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Darwinism in morals, and other essays : reprinted from the Theological and Fortnightly reviews, Fraser's and Macmillan's magazines, and the Manchester Friend / by Frances Power Cobbe. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    37/416 (page 25)
    Utilitarian scheme, with Mr. Darwin’s additions, affords not the vaguest indication. I cannot but think that, had any professed psychologist dealt thus with the mental phenomena which it was his business to explain, had he first assumed that we returned spontaneously to benevolent feelings after injuring our neighbours, and then presented such relenting as the essence of repentance, few readers would have failed to notice the disproportion between the unquestionable facts and their alleged cause. But when a great natural philosopher weaves mental phenomena into his general theory of ph3^sical de- velopment, it is to be feared that many a student will hastily accept a doctrine which seems to fit neatly enough into the sj^stem which he adopts as a whole; even though it could find on its own merits no admission into a scheme of psychology. The theory'' of Morals which alone ought to com- mand our adhesion must surely be one, not like this harmo- nizing only with one side of our philosophy, but equally true to all the facts of the case, whether we regard them from without or from within, whether we study ]\Ian, ah extra, as one animal amongst all the tribes of zoology, or from within by the experience of our own hearts. From the outside, it is obvious that the two human sentiments of Begret and Bepentance may very easily be confounded. A theory which should account for Begret might be sup- posed to cover the facts of Bepentance, did no inward experience of the difference forbid us to accept it. But since Coleridge pointed out this loose link in the chain of Utilitarian argument, no disciple of the school has been able to mend it; and even Mr. Darwin’s theory only sup- plies an hypothesis for the origin of relenting Pity, not one for Penitence. Bet us suppose two simple cases: first, that in an accident at sea, while striving eagerly to help a friend, we had unfortunately caused his death;