The satisfaction which ministering to others “brings to the instincts of benevolence,” such as that which is felt by those who give themselves to the sick and helpless.

And, lastly, the desire for approval, or the homage which is called “honour,” the efficiency of which is shown by the conduct of the soldier—­often a man of very ordinary education and character—­who will risk death in order that he may be decorated with some intrinsically worthless medal, which merely proclaims his valour or his unselfish devotion to his country.

Now, that the motives here in question are motives of extraordinary power, all history shows us.  The most impressive things accomplished by human nature have been due to them.  But let us consider what these things are.  The first motive—­namely, that supplied by the mere “pleasure in excelling”—­we need hardly consider by itself, for, in so far as socialists can look upon its objects as legitimate, it is included in the struggle for approbation or honour.  We will merely remark that the emphasis which the socialists lay on it is not very consonant with the principles of those persons who propose to abolish competition as the root of all social evils; and we will content ourselves with examining in detail the three other motives only, and the scope of their efficiency, as actual experience reveals it to us.

We shall find that the activities which these three motives stimulate are confined, so far as experience is able to teach us anything, to the following well-marked kinds, which have been already indicated:  those of the artist, of the speculative thinker, of the religious and philanthropic enthusiast, and, lastly, those of the soldier.  This list, if understood in its full sense, is exhaustive.

Such being the case, then, the argument of the socialists is as follows:  Because a Fra Angelico will paint a Christ or a Virgin, because a Kant will immolate all his years to philosophy, because a monk and a sister of mercy will devote themselves to the victims of pestilence, because a soldier in action will eagerly face death—­all without hope of any exceptional pecuniary reward—­the monopolists of business ability, if only such rewards are made impossible for them, will at once become amenable to the motives of the soldier, the artist, the philosopher, the inspired philanthropist, and the saint.  This is the assertion of the socialists when reduced to a precise form; and what we have to do is to inquire whether this assertion is true.  Does human nature, as history, as psychology, and as physiology reveal it to us, give us any grounds, in fact, for taking such an assertion seriously?  Any one who has studied human conduct historically, who has observed it in the life around him, and examined scientifically the diversities of temperament and motive that go with diversities of capacity, will dismiss such an assertion as at once groundless and ludicrous.