Moral Philosophies [pp. 402-410]

MORAL PHILOSOPHIES.
truth, and the professor's philosophy of anti-selfishness is the
needed other half of truth. The selfish and social feelings are
equally vicious and noxious when indulged to excess, equally
virtuous, usefuil and healthful when the balance or counterpoise
between them is properly adjusted, regulated and preserved.
We hold, then, that the proposed anti-selfish system is, rela tively, true-positively, false. True, so long as it holds divided
sway and dominion with fiee trade, or selfish philosophy. False,
the moment it drives the selfish system out of the field of morals
and exercises undivided power. For selfishness, or regard and
care of self, is quite as needful and obligatory a human duty, as
social feeling or anti-selfishness, which regards and takes care of
others. The individual would perish without the selfish feeling
and action. Society would cease to exist without the social
affections, and the charities that proceed from those affections.
The moral and the physical worlds are governed and controlled
by innumerable antinomes or opposing, yet co-operative laws or
forces. MAan's nature is half selfish, half social, and moral duty
consists in moderating the excesses of either of these feelings or
propensities, and in adjusting and preserving a proper balance
between them. No exact or universal rules can be laid down
for ascertaining, adjusting and preserving the proper balance between the infinitely numerous, minute and subtle antinomles
that sustain vegetable, animal and moral life; no line of universal and unvarying truth or rectitude has ever been, or ever will
be discovered in the vegetable, animal or moral kingdom-in
agriculture, medicine, law or ethics.
In morals we are continually running from one excess to the
opposite excess, continually crossing the line of truth and rectitude, but never treading it, because we can never know when
we have arrived at it. Yet we all know when we have departed and
wandered far from this line, and should try to return as near as
possible to it —satisfied with proximate truth, since we never
can attain absolute, universal, unvarying truth. We have insensibly wandered into an answer to our much valued and learned
friend, W. Archer Cooke, of Florida, who in an essay entitled
"The Harmony of Creation," in the March number of this REVIEW, whilst complimenting us by quoting with approbation
several passages from "Antinominic Pathology," an essay contributed by us to the "Southern Literary Messenger," for July, 1863,
complains of our title, "Antinomic Pathology," as "awkward
and inexpressive." He prefers the term, "antagonisms" to "antinomes." Now, "antagonisms" is a popular term, with no definite, restricted, scientific meaning, and is, besides, too strong to
define the seemingly opposing, yet co-operative, forces, that he
a grees with us sustain the moral and physical world.'" Antinomes," which we did not coin, but borrowed from Proudhon, is
the true and only scientific term to suit each of our purposes.
" Antilnoinic" was suggested to us by our friend A. Roane, of
408