860 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
man orders his conduct with reference to the future, to the welfare of his fellow-men, and to the ascertained laws of nature.
Hence, while morality is fundamentally the same for all men the determination of conduct to avoid, prevent, or alleviate pain there is concretely very little in common between the morals of savage and civilized man. Ethical progress has been in proportion to the subordination of present interests to future interests, of personal interests to social interests, and of religious interests to secular interests. Moral progress has resulted, not from any change in the fundamental character of the moral sense, but rather from the enlargement of its field of operation. It has always been aroused by consciousness of pain experienced by, or threatened to, self ; but the par- ticular conduct resulting from it has ever been determined by the existing constitution of that self.
The conspicuous fact in the history of morals is that what modern philosophy terms altruism has undergone great development with the progress of civilization. There can be no doubt that its essence consists in the emotional impulses of the indi- vidual animated by it to ward off evil from his fellows. It is the extension of the feeling which actuates the individual in keeping himself from harm to the broader emotion which prompts him to save others likewise from painful experience.
All systems of ethics recognize that moral conduct involves self-restraint or self- sacrifice, and hence utilitarian ethics which regards the prevention or alleviation of pain as the purpose of morality becomes open to the charge of occupying the para- doxical position that its ultimate object can be attained by creating in the conscious- ness of the moral agent one painful state in order to destroy or abate another. Such a change is hardly an adequate statement of the facts. Morality in many cases, as in refraining from doing bodily harm to another, or committing theft, has become organic with most civilized people and is not attended by any present sense of sacri- fice. In every moral action which has not become organic there must be a conscious choice between evils. Pain is to be avoided always, if possible, but when the harm to be prevented by the moral act is clearly seen by the moral agent to involve greater pain than that which he would suffer in performing such act, then his con- science prompts him to perform it. GEORGE L. ROBERTS, in International Journal of Ethics.
A. B.
Occupation as the Basis of Social Organization. I. The organization of the people on the basis of trade. The most important aspect of the scheme of the capitalistic economy is probably the fact that the skilled laborer, who possesses the knowledge of the labor first hand, is not interested in the economic outcome of his activity. The manager of the product, who alone has an interest in the economic out- come of it, is no longer a skilled workman, and has no longer the least qualitative relation to the material content of his activity. He develops the abilities of a retailer. The product is readily exchanged in the market. How shall he, then, develop a knowledge of the trade as distinct from the business end ? He comes in direct con- tact with it at most once a year in the calculation of the accident insurance or in the consultation of the tariff sheets. But no satisfactory organization of the trades engaged in the establishment can be made upon that basis. To the most stupid of our stupid thoughts in this time of prosperity belongs, therefore, this one : the desire to organize a modern state upon the foundation of professional or trade distinctions.
II. Profit-sharing, past and present, compared. The changes can be noted from two distinct points of view : one can compare the condition of affairs one hundred years ago with that which obtains today, and note the differences ; or one can con- sider the changes which the old status has undergone during the hundred years. These distinct modes of viewing the matter bring quite diverse results, and to this is due the fact that in the discussion of the problem the most diverse and frequently opposite opinions have been given, and doubtless, in many cases, rightly.
Time has demonstrated a few things; (t) It is not true that the poor have grown poorer; on the contrary, the poorest are richer today than they were a hundred years ago, whether you consider the poorest one hundred thousand or ten million. (2) It is certainly not true that the moderate incomes say, between 900 and 3,000 marks have become fewer, but, on the other hand, more powerful. (3) It is not true that the
