/ //. / TA RIA N ECONOMICS 53$

These facts are sufficient to show that this new cosmic and social agency is a growing power. I am now endeavoring to trace its history, and I propose to characterize the movement in its later social aspects as the subjective trend of modern philos- ophy. There has been going on along a number of more or less independent lines a continuous, though somewhat rhythmic, movement in the direction of the fuller realization of the ends of man as distinguished from those of nature, a subordination of the latter to the former, or an ignoring of the latter when they conflict with the former. This movement is nothing more nor less than a gradual transition from a pain economy to, or at least toward, a pleasure economy. It represents, in the fullest sense of the phrase, the progress of utilitarianism. It has been wholly due and strictly proportional to the growth of the rational fac- ultv. the increase of knowledge, and the inarch of science. Without these it could only lead to disaster. The great danger has been that of running counter to the law of natural evolution and of bringing about racial degeneration and extinction. Reason has acted as a pilot to keep the ship of life off these bars and to guide it safely on in the current of natural law. This movement embodies all that is meant by the progress of the world, and underlies every problem of history, government, and society. Many have been alarmed at its encroachments, and the moral and religious teachers of every age have antagonized it and stig- matized it as hedonism and sensuality. Those who early scented it and voiced it the Cumberlands, Shaftesburys, Hutchesons, Priestleys, Heccarias, and Benthams have been attacked, denounced, and discredited as Utopian dreamers. But its great- trides have been taken since their day, due far less to their influence than to the agencies which they sagaciously presaged. The opposition still continues, but grows weak and half-hearted. The latest warning voice has been that of Mr. Benjamin Kidd, wlin. whilr sympathizing with the movement, which he pro foundly misunderstands, bases his plea upon the doctrine that acquired characteristics are not transmissible, a doctrine which

Weismann has himself virtually abandoned, confounds optimism