174 ESSAYS AND LETrERS
only one aim — the welfare of one's neighbour), as soon as they decide that for business purjioses it is permis- sible to sacrifice the life and welfare of a single old man, burdensome to everyone, or even of an idiot, then it becomes permissible to sacrifice those wlio are less old and less stupid, and no limit can any longer be found — all may be sacrificed for the sake of business. That is what is wrong, and against that we must fight.
It should be understood tliat, however useful and important book-printing, railroads, ploughs and scythes may seem to us, it were better to let them all perish ami to do without them, until we can learn to get them without destroying the liappiness and life of men. That is the wliole (^ue^ti()n ; and it is here people generally get confused, trying to go round the point on one side or the other. Some >ay : * You want to destroy all tliat Ijumanity has aciiieved by its labour — you wish to return to barbarism, for the sake of some moral principle or other. Moral principles are wrong if they hinder the well-being humanity achieves in the course of its progress.' Otliers say (and I fear you hold this opinion, and it is an opinion people attribute to me) that since, in the process of attaining all the material ameliorations of life, moral principles have been violated, therefore all these ameliorations must, in themselves, be bad and should be abandoned.
To the upholders of the first view I reply, that what is needed is not to destroy anything, but only to remember that the aim of humanity is the welfare of all, and that consequently as soon as any amelioration deprives even a single man of welfare, that amelioration should be abandoned, and not introduced until means are found to produce it and to use it, without infring- ing the welfare of any single man. And I think that with such a view of life, very many empty and harmful productions would be abandoned, wliile we should very quickly find means to produce what is really useful without infringing the welfare of any man.
To the upholders of the second view 1 reply, that humanity in passing from the stone age to the bronze or
