Of positive beneficence under its absolute form nothing more specific can be said than that it must become co-extensive with whatever sphere remains for it; aiding to complete the life of each as a recipient of services and to exalt the life of each as a renderer of services. As with a developed humanity the desire for it by every one will so increase, and the sphere for exercise of it so decrease, as to involve an altruistic competition, analogous to the existing egoistic competition, it may be that Absolute Ethics will eventually include what we before called a higher equity, prescribing the mutual limitations of altruistic activities.
Under its relative form, positive beneficence presents numerous problems, alike important and difficult, admitting only of empirical solutions. How far is self-sacrifice for another's benefit to be carried in each case?—a question which must be answered differently according to the character of the other, the needs of the other, and the various claims of self and belongings which have to be met. To what extent under given circumstances shall private welfare be subordinated to public welfare?—a question to be answered after considering the importance of the end and the seriousness of the sacrifice. What benefit and what detriment will result from gratuitous aid yielded to another?—a question in each case implying an estimate of probabilities. Is there any unfair treatment of sundry others, involved by more than fair treatment of this one other? Up to what limit may help be given to the existing generation of the inferior, without entailing mischief on future generations of the superior? Evidently to these and many kindred questions included in this division of Relative Ethics, approximately true answers only can be given.
But though here Absolute Ethics, by the standard it supplies, does not greatly aid Relative Ethics, yet, as in other cases, it aids somewhat by keeping before consciousness an ideal conciliation of the various claims involved; and by suggesting the search for such compromise among them, as shall not disregard any, but shall satisfy all to the greatest extent practicable.
FOOTNOTES
A Leviathan, ch. xv.
B I can count up more than a dozen such cases among those personally well known to me.
C Constitutional Code, chap. xvi, Supreme Legislative—Section vi. Omnicompetence.
D Republic, Bk. ix.
E Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. i, chap 8.
F Bk. x, chap. 7.
G This universal requirement it was which I had in view when choosing for my first work, published in 1850, the title Social Statics.
H On Idiocy and Imbecility, by William W. Ireland, M. D., p. 255–6.
I For instances see Fortnightly Review, Vol. XXIV (New Series), p. 712.
J See Essay on "The Origin and Function of Music."
K I do not find this passage in the second edition; but the omission of it appears to have arisen not from any change of view, but because it did not naturally come into the recast form of the argument which the section contains.
L Most of these quotations I make from Dr. Bain's Mental and Moral Science.
Transcriber's Note
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unpaired quotation marks were retained.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.
There are two Section 14's, 22's and 105's; and no Section 16.
Page 94: "pharynx" was misprinted as "phayrnx".; changed here.
Page 111: "pouring half the night" may be a misprint for "poring".
Page 200: Missing closing quotation mark added after 'a means of happiness?'. The text from this was quoted ends in a period, not a question mark.
Page 226:Page 226: "this all all-important factor" was printed with the word "all" duplicated and was not corrected.