(3) This cosmic defiance of Huxley’s commands our approval; if morality interferes with the evolutionary process, let it interfere; the sooner an immoral process is stopped the better.  But, after all, Huxley unnecessarily limits the meaning of the phrase “the cosmic process,” applying it only to that stage which antedates the development of morality.  That development, however, is itself natural selection, which in its earlier stages selects merely the strong and swift and clever, in its later stages selects also the moral races and individuals.  So that to follow out the evolutionary process is, for man, after all, to follow morality as well as to cultivate speed and strength and wit.

There is, indeed, a danger to the race from the development of the tenderer side of morality, in the care for the feeble and degenerate which permits them to live and produce offspring, instead of being ruthlessly exterminated, as in ruder days.  But this danger can, and will, be met by measures which, while permitting life and, so far as possible, happiness, to these unfortunates, will prevent them from having children.  Except for this removable danger, the development of sympathy and tenderness by no means involves a lessening of virility, but is rather its necessary complement and check.

Is self-development or self-realization the ultimate end?

It is no justification of morality to say that it is “in harmony with nature.”  Is it an adequate justification to say that morality is what makes for self-development or self-realization?  A number of classic and contemporary moralists, fighting shy of the acknowledgment of happiness as the ultimate end, have rested content with such expressions.  Darwin wrote, “The term ‘general good’ may be defined as the rearing of the greatest number of individuals in full vigor and health, with all their faculties perfect, under the conditions to which they are subjected.” [Footnote:  Descent of Man, chap, iv.] Paulsen writes, “The value of virtue consists in its favorable effects upon the development of life...The value of life consists in the normal performance of all functions, or in the exercise of capacities and virtues...A perfect human life is an end in itself.  The standard is what has been called the normal type, or the idea, of human life.” [Footnote:  System of Ethics, book ii, chap.  II.]

(1) Such a point of view gives opportunity for stimulating words.  But it gives no guidance.  Observation can teach us, slowly, what conduct makes for happiness; but what conduct makes for “self-development”?  The fact is, the cultivation of any impulse will develop us in its direction and preclude our development in other directions; along which path shall we let ourselves develop?  Every choice involves rejection; infinite possibilities diverge before us; which among the myriad impulses that call upon us shall we follow?  While still young and plastic, we may develop ourselves