seriously contend that cannibalism or lynching, the execution of Christ, or the banishment of Dreyfus, made in the direction of the greatest happiness of mankind.  But it has been seriously urged that the insane and the feeble and the morally worthless should be killed off, as they were in some sterner ancient states.  Why should we guarantee life and liberty to such as are a useless drag upon the community, spend upon them millions which might be spent for bringing joy and recreation to the rest of us?  Or again, if medical men need a living human victim to experiment upon, in order to conquer some devastating disease, why not pounce upon some good-for-nothing member of the community and force him to undergo the pain?  The considerations enumerated in the preceding paragraph, however, bid us halt.  Imagine the anxiety and the anguish that would be caused if some commission were free to determine who were insane or feeble or worthless enough to be put out of the way!  Or free to select a human victim for vivisection whenever experts deemed it wise!  The widespread horror and uneasiness of such a regime, the callousness to suffering it would engender, the private revenges and crimes that might insidiously creep in under the guise of public good, are alone enough to render vicious such a procedure.

It is true that one person’s suffering is less of an evil than the suffering of many.  The State, by universal consent, inflicts undeserved suffering upon individuals when the social welfare seems to require it; as when it takes away a man’s beloved acre to built a railroad or highway, or when it compels vaccination, or when it drafts soldiers for the national defense and sends them to their death.  When a man volunteers to risk his life or to endure pain for his fellows we rightly applaud his act.  In such a case the ill effects above-mentioned do not follow, and the gain is clear; in addition, the stimulating value of the voluntary self-sacrifice is great.  The American soldiers, who risked their lives to rid Cuba and the world of yellow fever, by offering themselves for inoculation with the disease, stand among the world’s heroes.

It is also true that “rights” are not primitive and transcendent; their existence rests upon purely utilitarian grounds.  The right to liberty and life is limited by the community’s welfare.  So is the right to property.  But in estimating advantage we must beware of a superficial calculation.  The concept of justice, and the enthusiasm for it, have been of enormous value to man’s happiness.  It is of extreme importance, from a eudaemonistic standpoint, to cherish that ideal.  Even if in some individual case a greater general happiness would result from infringing upon it, we cannot afford to do so; we should find ourselves lapsing into less advantageous habits and incurring unforeseen penalties.