Social Rights And Duties: Addresses to Ethical Societies. Vol 2 [of 2] — Reading Companion

(0 User reviews) 316

In Category - Ethics

Authors: Stephen, Leslie, 1832-1904 Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2011 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Social ethics; Ethics, Evolutionary Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 65,402

Reading time 285 min

Text sections 6

The source record for Social Rights And Duties: Addresses to Ethical Societies. Vol 2 [of 2] — Reading Companion measures this digital text at 65,402 words, 4 hr 45 min estimated reading time, and 6 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 28.4 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Social ethics,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #36957

Leslie Stephen examines heredity, punishment, luxury, authorship, philosophising, and forgotten benefactors through the lens of evolutionary ethics, questioning how scientific concepts reshape moral responsibility and social duty.

Editorial Edition Score 4.7/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg36957

Read the Text

Weissmann had published a line,--my nurse and my mother had affirmed that the baby was like his papa. That, at any rate, is a remark, the omission of which would show more originality than the assertion. If I desired, again, to produce classical authority for the importance of race, I should not have to extend my researches beyond the Latin Grammar. If, once more, we look into the writings of famous theologians, we meet it everywhere. I take the first that comes to hand. "Good men," says Calvin, "and beyond all others, Augustine, have laboured to demonstrate, that we are not corrupted by any adventitious means but that we derive an innate depravity from our very birth." The denial of this was an instance of consummate impudence--reserved, as Calvin shows, for such wicked heretics as Pelagius. The doctrine of heredity, in short, in a theological version, is essentially involved in the dogmatic foundations of the orthodox creed. I have no doubt that an investigation of the reasonings of Augustine and others would exhibit much affinity to modern controversy, though in a very different terminology. Whatever we may think of its merits, the doctrine of original sin implies that a depraved nature may have been transmitted to the whole human race; and, if the commonly alleged cause of the original depravity strikes us as insufficient, it is, at least, a very familiar argument of divines, that the doctrine corresponds to undeniable facts. Why should it startle us in a scientific dress? If we can transmit depravity, why not genius and bodily health? In one respect, modern theories tend rather to limit than to extend the applicability of the principle. No one ever doubted, nor could doubt, that the child of a monkey is always a monkey; and that the child of a negro, or even of a Mongol, has certain characteristics which distinguish it from the child of a European. But the difference is that, whereas it used to be held that there was an impassable barrier between the monkey and the man, it is now widely believed that both may be descendants from a common ancestor. Should this belief establish itself, we shall have to admit that, in spite of heredity, organic forms are capable of much wider variation than was believed by our fathers to be even conceivable.

Continue Reading →

Leslie Stephen opens his address on heredity by disclaiming scientific expertise, stating he is 'quite incompetent to express any opinion of the slightest scientific value' on technical problems. Instead, he takes for granted that 'there is some relation between parents and children' and that evolution must be accepted in some form. This modest framing sets the tone for a volume that consistently approaches ethical questions from a practical, rather than theoretical, standpoint.

The addresses, originally delivered to the Ethical Societies of London and partly published in periodicals, show Stephen working through the moral implications of contemporary ideas. He is less concerned with proving scientific claims than with asking what they mean for everyday conduct and social institutions.

Heredity and Moral Responsibility

Stephen tackles the fear that evolutionary determinism might undermine ethics. He assumes heredity shapes our starting qualities, but insists this does not erase moral accountability. The address is careful not to overclaim: he admits he has 'nothing whatever to suggest' about the mechanism of inheritance. Instead, he focuses on how the concept of heredity can be incorporated into existing ethical frameworks without collapsing them.

His method is to isolate the core ethical problem—whether accepting evolution introduces 'any difficulty into our primary ethical conceptions'—and then argue that it does not, provided we adjust our understanding of responsibility. The tone is conversational, even self-deprecating, as he acknowledges the limits of his own expertise.

The Changing Status of Authorship

In 'The Duties of Authors', Stephen examines the historical stigma attached to writing for money. He notes that a century earlier, 'the profession of letters was still regarded as more or less disreputable', and that periodical writing was seen as a 'poor relation' of the learned professions. He cites the 1809 Lincoln's Inn resolution barring those who wrote for money from being called to the Bar.

Stephen traces how the press grew up 'in spite of authority', with writers acting as 'dependent auxiliaries' or 'mercenary guerillas'. He observes that anonymity in journalism raises moral questions about responsibility: the public reads 'without knowing who are its instructors', and the instructors write 'without incurring any definite personal responsibility'. This historical analysis grounds his ethical inquiry in concrete social conditions.

Forgotten Benefactors and the Ethics of Memory

The final address turns to those whose contributions have been overlooked. Stephen's approach is characteristic: he does not simply praise the forgotten, but uses their obscurity to question how we assign moral worth. The title 'Forgotten Benefactors' itself implies a tension between actual benefit and historical recognition.

Stephen's method throughout the volume is to take a concept—heredity, punishment, luxury, authorship, philosophising—and examine its moral dimensions through historical and practical examples. He avoids abstract system-building, preferring to test ideas against lived experience. The addresses are linked by a consistent concern: how do scientific and social changes affect our understanding of duty?

Readers will find that Stephen's addresses reward attention to his rhetorical strategy: he often states his limitations before making a pointed argument. The volume is best approached as a series of independent but thematically connected essays, each testing a specific ethical problem against the evolutionary thinking of his time. His scepticism toward grand philosophical claims is balanced by a genuine commitment to practical morality.

Reading Stephen’s quiet dismantling of duty made me think of my grandfather’s worn Bible, margins full of penciled questions he never voiced aloud. He would have appreciated how Biblical Extracts; Or, The Holy Scriptures Analyzed; Showing Its Contradictions, Absurdities, and Immoralities — A Closer Reading treats scripture not as enemy but as artifact, asking what we owe a text once we stop fearing it. Both books left me holding my own doubts more gently.