abounded in history. We are thus forced to ask, Upon what grounds were they justified in the eyes of the people among whom they prevailed? Fundamentally, we must believe that these class distinctions have been recognized because of a more or less vague idea prevalent among the people that there is between the noble and base-born a distinction almost as essential as that between mankind and the lower animals. Otherwise there could hardly have been obtained that popular acquiescence, which for so long a time endured, in the economic and political advantages that were attached to the upper orders. When we find a divine right of kings to govern wrong widely admitted; when to monarchs of notoriously evil lives we find supernatural powers ascribed, such, for example, as the "royal touch" for the cure of disease; when we discover a Beaumarchais alleging as a justification for his aristocratic pretensions that he has taken the trouble to be born, and a French dame of high degree replying, when warned of the coming of the revolution, that "the Lord will think twice before he will allow the rights of the nobility to be endangered," -when we find such ideas held by the upper and accepted by the lower classes, we cannot but believe that, whether explicitly avowed or not, the position has been held that there are orders of men distinguished by differences which go deeper than personal capacities, and which thus separate them, quâ men, from one another.

The definite repudiation of such an idea has been more completely recognized in America than in the

countries of the Old World. At the same time it may well be questioned whether, to some extent at least, we have not swung the pendulum too far the other way; whether, in other words, in refusing to acknowledge the validity of pretensions based upon mere title or birth we do not, as a people, fail to give that recognition, and display that deference, which is properly due where individual worth has manifested itself. Do we not, in short, fail to show that respect which is owing to men of letters, to public-spirited citizens, or even to the individuals whom we have honored by selecting as our highest rulers of the State? And, on the other hand, is there not often found an improper deference paid to the man merely of wealth or of accidental prominence? The aristocratic principle, when properly interpreted, is a valid one. In every society there should exist an aristocracy of merit and individual worth. The old Platonic ideal of a society in which the wisest and best of its members exercise the controlling influence cannot in this respect be improved upon, and it may easily be a question for debate whether the existence of an aristocracy such as England has, which, though based upon birth, represents a class of citizens who recognize their obligations toward their State and their society, is not preferable to the total absence of any aristocracy whatsoever.

Leaving this subject of aristocracy, we turn to a still more important question which arises in connection with the fact of the natural inequalities of men. Granting that these inequalities exist―inequalities

due to no original merit or demerit on the part of the individuals subjected to them-does this fact impose any obligations upon the individuals who are the more favored, or upon society as a whole, to correct, in a measure at least, if possible, the disadvantages under which the more unfortunate of our fellow-beings rest?

As an abstract principle of justice, it would seem that, so far as the opportunity for self-development of these unfortunates is affected, it does. When we consider that all men are rational beings and moral potentialities, and thus fundamentally equal, one cannot escape from the conclusion that a perfect régime would be one in which all individuals would have an opportunity for the development and exercise of those capacities which, from the highest ethical standpoint, should be cultivated and employed. And if this be the ethical ideal, it necessarily follows that, so far as it lies within our power, we should strive for its attainment.

The recognition of this obligation does not, of course, commit us to anything resembling communism. This appears when we consider the difficulties that surround the practical application of the rule, and the specific duties that it implies. In the first place, it cannot be asked, at least so far as this one rule is concerned, that we individually, or society as a whole, should undertake the correction of any but the few inequalities which are obviously due to circumstances which have been beyond the control of those affected by them. Thus, even were this rule

of justice generally recognized and followed, there would still be left uncorrected all those inequalities that have been due to controllable causes. Furthermore, this rule alone places no obligation upon the individual to share with others those advantages which he has secured through his own efforts and without assistance from naturally superior abilities or environment. And, finally, this principle would imply neither a right on the part of the individual to demand an opportunity for the development and exercise of every talent which he may potentially possess, nor to ask that he be given exactly the same educational advantages, and be secured the same means for the employment of his physical and mental capabilities, as those enjoyed by his mates. According to the principles of justice which we have already established, the individual can claim from others as a right only those privileges which, when enjoyed, will promote his own best good; and this best good, as we have also seen, must necessarily be interpreted in terms of the general good of all humanity. As for the character of the opportunities to be enjoyed by each individual respectively, this clearly must depend upon his special capacities. For example, the principle would not mean that the microcephalic idiot and the gifted genius should receive the same educational treatment. It would mean nothing more than that, so far as possible, that kind of opportunity for economic advancement or intellectual development should be given which is best calculated to actualize the powers potentially possessed. Further

still, it is to be recognized that, as has been already said when speaking of aristocracy, aside from any other considerations, a certain amount of inequality may be desirable upon grounds of social utility. As Professor Mackenzie has said: "If, indeed, all could be maintained at the highest level of human life, it would obviously be well that they should be so maintained. But the greatest advances in the condition of mankind have hitherto been made by a few individuals who have been able to develop particular kinds of ability in an exceptional degree; and even if it were true that such individuals have by nature no more ability than their fellows, it might yet be desirable among men, as among bees, that a few should be picked out from among the workers — whether by circumstances or by lot, or by some other mode of selection—to be sovereigns and leaders." 1

One consequence, and a very important one, does, however, follow from the acceptance of the rule of justice of which we have been speaking. This is, that, when put into practice, the two ideas of charity and justice will lead to exactly the same conduct. In other words, justice when properly interpreted, and charity when properly applied, must lead to identical treatment of others. chologically the ideas of charity and justice are distinct. The one is based upon a sympathy which springs up spontaneously at the sight, or knowledge, of suffering. The other is a sense of obligation, resulting from a reasoned judgment as to what is

E

1 Introduction to Social Philosophy, p. 287.

Psy