Fruits of Philosophy Part 1

Fruits of Philosophy.

by Charles Knowlton.

PREFACE.

The pamphlet which we now present to the public is one which has been lately prosecuted under Lord Gampbell's Act, and which we republish, in order to test the right of publication. It was originally written by Charles Knowlton, M. D., whose degree ent.i.tles him to be heard with respect on a medical question. It was first published in England, about forty years ago, by James Watson, the gallant radical, who came to London and took up Richard Carlile's work, when Carlile was in jail. He sold it, unchallenged, for many years, approved it, and recommended it.

It was printed and published by Messrs. Holyoake & Co., and found its place, with other works of a similar character, in their "Freethought Directory," of 1853, and was thus identified with freethought literature at the then leading freethought _depot_ Mr. Austin Holyoake, working in con-junction with Mr. Bradlaugh at the _National Reformer_ office, Johnson's Court, printed and published it in his turn, and this well-known freethought advocate, in his "Large or Small Families,"

selected this pamphlet, together with R. D. Owen's "Moral Physiology"

and the "Elements of Social Science," for special recommendation. Mr.

Charles Watts, succeeding to Mr. Austin Holyoake's business, continued the sale, and, when Mr. Watson died, in 1875, he bought the plates of the work (with others) from Mrs. Watson, and continued to advertise and to sell it until December 23, 1876. For the last forty years the book has thus been identified with freethought, advertised by leading freethinkers, published under the sanction of their names, and sold in the headquarters of freethought literature. If, during this long period, the party has thus--without one word of protest--circulated an indecent work, the less we talk about freethought morality the better; the work has been largely sold, and, if leading freethinkers have sold it--profiting by the sale--through mere carelessness, few words could be strong enough to brand the indifference which thus scattered obscenity broadcast over the land. The pamphlet has been withdrawn from circulation in consequence of the prosecution inst.i.tuted against Mr.

Charles Watts, but the question of its legality or illegality has not been tried; a plea of "Guilty" was put in by the publisher, and the book, therefore, was not examined, nor was any judgment pa.s.sed upon it; no jury registered a verdict, and the judge stated that he had not read the work.

We republish this pamphlet, honestly believing that on all questions affecting the happiness of the people, whether they be theological, political or social, fullest right of free discussion ought to be maintained at all hazards. We do not personally indorse all that Dr. Knowles says: his "Philosophical Proem" seems to us full of philosophical mistakes, and--as we are neither of us doctors--we are not prepared to indorse his medical views; but since progress can only be made through discussion, and no discussion is possible where differing opinions are suppressed, we claim the right to publish all opinions, so that the public, enabled to see all sides of a question, may have the materials for forming a sound judgment.

The alterations made are very slight, the book was badly printed, and errors of spelling and a few clumsy grammatical expressions have been corrected; the subt.i.tle has been changed, and in one case four lines have been omitted, because they are repeated word for word further on.

We have, however, made some additions to the pamphlet, which are in all cases kept distinct from the original text. Physiology has made great strides during the past forty years, and not considering it right to circulate erroneous physiology, we submitted the pamphlet to a doctor in whose accurate knowledge we have the fullest confidence, and who is widely known in all parts of the world as the author of the "Elements of Social Science;" the notes signed "G. B." are written by this gentleman.

References to other works are given in foot-notes for the a.s.sistance of the reader, if he desires to study up the subject further.

Old Radicals will remember that Richard Carlile published a work ent.i.tled "Every Woman's Book," which deals with the same subject and advocates the same object as Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet R. D. Owen objected to the "style and tone" of Carlile's "Every Woman's Book," as not being in "good taste," and he wrote his "Moral Physiology" to do in America what Carlile's work was intended to do in England. This work of Carlile's was stigmatized as "indecent" and "immoral," because it advocated, as does Dr. Knowlton's, the use of preventive checks to population. In striving to carry on Carlile's work, we cannot expect to escape Carlile's reproach; but, whether applauded or condemned, we mean to carry it on, socially as well as politically and theologically.

We believe, with the Rev. Mr. Malthus, that population has a tendency to increase faster than the means of existence, and that _some_ checks must therefore exercise control over population. The checks now exercised are semi-starvation and preventable disease; the enormous mortality among the infants of the poor is one of the checks which now keep down the population. The checks that ought to control population are scientific, and it is these which we advocate. We think it more moral to prevent the conception of children than, after they are born, to murder them by want of food, air and clothing. We advocate scientific checks to population, because, so long as poor men have large families, pauperism is a necessity, and from pauperism grow crime and disease. The wages which would support the parents and two or three children in comfort and decency, is utterly insufficient to maintain a family of twelve or fourteen, and we consider it a crime to bring into the world human beings doomed to misery or to premature death. It is not only the hard-working cla.s.ses which are concerned in this question. The poor preacher, the struggling man of business, the young professional man, are often made wretched for life by their inordinately large families, and their years are pa.s.sed in one long battle to live; meanwhile, the woman's health is sacrificed and her life embittered from the same cause. To all of these we point the way of relief and happiness; for the sake of these we publish what others fear to issue; and we do it confident that if we fail the first time, we shall succeed at last, and that the English public will not permit the authorities to stifle a discussion of the most important social question which can influence a nation's welfare.

Charles Bradlaugh.

Annie Besant.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROEM

Consciousness is not a "principle" or substance of any kind, nor is it, strictly speaking, a property of any substance or being. It is a peculiar action of the nervous system, and the system is said to be sensible, or to possess the property of sensibility, because those sentient actions which const.i.tute our different consciousnesses may be excited in it. The nervous system includes not only the brain and spinal marrow, but numerous soft white cords, called nerves, which extend from the brain and spinal marrow to every part of the body in which a sensation can be excited.

A sensation is a sentient action of a nerve and the brain; a thought or idea (both the same thing) is a sentient action of the brain alone. A sensation or a thought is consciousness, and there is no consciousness but that which consists either in a sensation or a thought.

Agreeable consciousness const.i.tutes what we call happiness, and disagreeable consciousness const.i.tutes misery. As sensations are a higher degree of consciousness than mere thought, it follows that agreeable sensations const.i.tute a more exquisite happiness than agreeable thoughts. That portion of happiness which consists in agreeable sensations is commonly called pleasure. No thoughts are agreeable except those which were originally excited by or have been a.s.sociated with agreeable sensations. Hence, if a person never had experienced any agreeable sensations, he could have no agreeable thoughts, and would, of course, be an entire stranger to happiness.

There are five species of sensations--seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. There are many varieties of feeling--as the feelings of hunger, thirst, cold, hardness, etc. Many of these feelings are excited by agents that act upon the exterior of the body, such as solid substances of every kind, heat, and various chemical irritants. These latter feelings are called _pa.s.sions_.

Those pa.s.sions which owe their existence chiefly to the state of the brain, or to causes acting directly upon the brain, are called the moral pa.s.sion. They are grief, anger, love, etc. They consist of sentient actions, which commence in the brain and extend to the nerves in the region of the stomach, etc. But when the cause of the internal feeling of pa.s.sion is seated in some organ remote from the brain, as in the stomach, genital organs, etc., the sentient action which const.i.tutes the pa.s.sion commences in the nerves of such organ and extends to the brain, and the pa.s.sion is called an _appet.i.te, instinct, or desire_. Some of these pa.s.sions are natural, as hunger, thirst, the reproductive instinct, the desire to urinate, etc. Others are gradually acquired by habit A _hankering_ for stimulants, as spirits, opium and tobacco, is one of these.

Such is the nature of things that our most vivid and agreeable sensations cannot be excited under all circ.u.mstances, nor beyond a certain extent under any circ.u.mstances, without giving rise in one way or another to an amount of disagreeable consciousness or misery, exceeding the amount of agreeable consciousness which attends such ill-timed or excessive gratification. To excite agreeable sensations to a degree not exceeding this certain extent is temperance; to excite them beyond this extent is intemperance; not to excite them at all is mortification or abstinence. This certain extent varies with different individuals, according to their several circ.u.mstances, so that what would be temperance in one person may be intemperance in another.

To be free from disagreeable consciousness is to be in a state which, compared with a state of misery, is a happy state; yet absolute happiness does not exist in the absence of misery, if it does, rocks are happy. It consists, as aforesaid, in agreeable consciousness. That which enables a person to excite or maintain agreeable consciousness is not happiness; but the _idea_ of having such in one's possession is agreeable, and of course is a portion of happiness. Health and wealth go far in enabling a person to excite and maintain agreeable consciousness.

That which gives rise to agreeable consciousness is _good_, and we desire it. If we use it intemperately, such use is bad, but the thing itself is still good. Those acts (and intentions are acts of that part of man which intends) of human beings which tend to the promotion of happiness are good, but they are also called _virtuous_, to distinguish them from other things of the same tendency. There is nothing for the word _virtue_ to signify, but virtuous actions. Sin signifies nothing but sinful actions, and sinful, wicked, vicious, or bad actions are those which are productive of more misery than happiness.

When an individual gratifies any of his instincts in a _temperate_ degree, he adds an item to the sum total of human happiness, and causes the amount of human happiness to exceed the amount of misery farther than if he had not enjoyed himself, therefore it is virtuous, or, to say the least, it is not vicious or sinful for him to do so. But it must ever be remembered that this temperate degree depends on circ.u.mstances; that one person's health, pecuniary circ.u.mstances, or social relation may be such that it would cause more misery than happiness for him to do an act which being done by a person under different circ.u.mstances would cause more happiness than misery. Therefore, it would be right for the latter to perform such act, but not for the former.

Again: owing to his _ignorance_, a man may not be able to gratify a desire without causing misery (wherefore it would be wrong for him to do it), but with knowledge of means to prevent this misery, he may so gratify it that more pleasure than pain will be the result of the act, in which case the act, to say the least, is justifiable. Now, therefore, it is virtuous, nay, it is the _duty_, for him who has a knowledge of such means, to convey it to those who have it not, for by so doing he furthers the cause of human happiness.

Man by nature is endowed with the talent of devising means to remedy or prevent the evils that are liable to arise from gratifying our appet.i.tes; and it is as much the duty of the physician to inform mankind of the means to prevent the evils that are liable to arise from gratifying the productive instinct as it is to inform them how to keep clear of the gout or dyspepsia. Let not the old ascetic say we ought not to gratify our appet.i.tes any further than is necessary to maintain health and to perpetuate the species. Mankind will not so abstain, and if any means to prevent the evils that may arise from a farther gratification can be devised, they _need not_. Heaven has not only given us the capacity of greater enjoyment, but the talent of devising means to prevent the evils that are liable to arise therefrom, and it becomes us, "with thanksgiving," to make the most of them.

FRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY.

CHAPTER I. TO LIMIT AT WILL THE NUMBER OF THEIR OFFSPRING

Showing how desirable it is, both in a political and a social point of view, for mankind to be able to limit at WILL THE NUMBER OF THEIR OFFSPRING, WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE PLEASURE THAT ATTENDS THE GRATIFICATION OF THE REPRODUCTIVE INSTINCT.

First.---_In a political point of view_.--If population be not restrained by some great physical calamity, such as we have reason to hope will not hereafter be visited upon the children of men, or by some _moral restraint_, the time will come when the earth cannot support its inhabitants. Population unrestrained will double three times in a century. Hence, computing the present population of the earth at 1,000 millions, there would be at the end of 100 years from the present time, 8,000 millions.

At the end of 200 years, 64,000 millions.

" " 300 " 512,000 "

And so on, multiplying by eight for every additional hundred years.

So that in 500 years from the present time there would be thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty eight times as many inhabitants as at present. If the natural increase should go on without check for 1,500 years, one single pair would increase to more than _thirty-five thousand one hundred and eighty-four_ times as many as the present population of the whole earth!

Some check then there must be, or the time will come when millions will be born but to suffer and to perish for the necessaries of life. To what an inconceivable amount of human misery would such a state of things give rise! And must we say that vice, war, pestilence and famine are desirable to prevent it? Must the friends of temperance and domestic happiness stay their efforts? Must peace societies excite to war and bloodshed? Must the physician cease to investigate the nature of contagion, and to search for the means of destroying its baneful influence? Must he that becomes diseased be marked as a victim to die for public good, without the privilege of making an effort to restore him to health? And in case of a failure of crops in one part of the world, must the other parts withhold the means of supporting life that the far greater evil of excessive population throughout the world may be prevented? Can there be no effectual moral restraint, attended with far less human misery than such physical calamities as these? Most surely there can. But what is it? Malthus, an English writer on the subject of population, gives us none but celibacy to a late age. But how foolish it is to suppose that men and women will become as monks and nuns during the very holiday of their existence, and abjure during the fairest years of life the nearest and dearest of social relations, to avert a catastrophe which they and perhaps their children will not live to witness. But, besides being ineffectual, or if effectual, requiring a great sacrifice of enjoyment, this restraint is highly objectionable on the score of its demoralizing tendency. It would give rise to a frightful increase of prost.i.tution, of intemperance and onanism, and prove destructive to health and moral feelings. In spite of preaching, human nature will ever remain the same; and that restraint which forbids the gratification of the reproductive instinct will avail but little with the ma.s.s of mankind. The checks to be hereafter mentioned are the only moral restraints to population known to the writer that are unattended with serious objections.

Besides starvation, with all its accompanying evils, overpopulation is attended with other public evils, of which may be mentioned, ignorance and slavery. Where the ma.s.s of the people must toil incessantly to obtain support, they must remain ignorant; and where ignorance prevails, tyranny reigns.*

* The scientific part of Malthus' Doctrine of Population is not very clearly or correctly given in the above pa.s.sages.

His great theory, now or generally held by the most eminent political economists, is that the increase of population is always powerfully checked in old countries by the difficulty in increasing the supply of food; that the existing evils of poverty and low wages are really at bottom caused by this check, and are brought about by the pressure of population on the soil, and the continual overstocking of the labor markets with laborers; and hence that the only way in which society can escape from poverty, with all its miseries, is by putting a strong restraint on their natural powers of multiplication. "It is not in the nature of things," he says, "that any permanent and general improvement in the condition of the poor can be effected without an increase in the preventive checks to population."--G. R.

Second--_In a social point of view_.--"Is it not notorious that the families of the married often increase beyond which a regard for the young beings coming into the world, and the happiness of those who give them birth, would dictate. In how many instances does the hard-working father, and more especially the mother, of a poor family remain slave throughout their lives, tugging at the oar of incessant labor, toiling to live, and living to toil; when, if their offspring had been limited to two or three only, they might have enjoyed comfort and comparative affluence? How often is the health of the mother, giving birth every year to an infant--happy if it be not twins--and compelled to toil on, even at those times when nature imperiously calls for some relief from daily drudgery,--how often is the mother's comfort, health, nay, even her life, thus sacrificed? Or if care and toil have weighed down the spirit, and at length broken the health of the father; how often is the widow left unable, with the most virtuous intentions, to save her fatherless offspring from becoming degraded objects of charity, or profligate votaries of vice!

"Nor is this all. Many women are so const.i.tuted that they cannot give birth to healthy, sometimes not to living children. Is it desirable, is it moral, that such women should become pregnant? Yet this is continually the case. Others there are who ought never to become parents; because, if they do, it is only to transmit to their offspring grievous hereditary diseases, which render such offspring mere subjects of misery throughout their sickly existence. Yet such women will not lead a life of celibacy. They marry. They become parents, and the sum of human misery is increased by their doing so. But it is folly to expect that we can induce such persons to live the lives of Shakers. Nor is it necessary; all that duty requires of them is to refrain from becoming parents. Who can estimate the beneficial effect which a rational moral restraint may thus have on the health and beauty and physical improvement of our race throughout future generations?"

Let us now turn our attention to the case of unmarried youth.

"Almost all young persons, on reaching the age of maturity, desire to marry. That heart must be very cold, or very isolated, that does not find some object on which to bestow its affections. Thus, early marriage would be almost universal did not prudential consideration interfere.

The young man thinks, 'I cannot marry yet; I cannot support a family.

I must make money first, and think of a matrimonial settlement afterwards.'

"And so he goes to making money, fully and sincerely resolved in a few years to share it with her whom he now loves. But pa.s.sions are strong and temptations great. Curiosity, perhaps, introduces him into the company of those poor creatures whom society first reduces to a dependence on the most miserable of mercenary trades, and then curses for being what she has made them. There his health and moral feelings are alike made shipwreck. The affections he had thought to treasure up for their first object are chilled by dissipation and blunted by excess.

He scarcely retains a pa.s.sion but avarice. Years pa.s.s on--years of profligacy and speculation--and his wish is accomplished, his fortune is made. Where now are the feelings and resolve of his youth?

'Like the dew on the mountain, Like the foam on the river, Like the bubbles on the fountain, They are gone--and forever.'

"He is a man of pleasure, a man of the world. He laughs at the romance of his youth, and marries a fortune. If gaudy equipage and gay parties confer happiness, he is happy. But if these be only the sunshine on the stormy sea below, he is a victim to that system of morality which forbids a reputable connection until the period when provision has been made for a large expected family. Had he married the first object of his choice, and simply delayed becoming a father until his prospects seemed to warrant it, how different might have been his lot. Until men and women are absolved from the fear of becoming parents, except when they themselves desire it, they will ever form mercenary and demoralizing connections, and seek in dissipation the happiness they might have found in domestic life.