st that there has
been a slow movement towards morality, with an imperceptible ethical
change in every year or at every instant. There is only one great
disadvantage in this theory. It talks of a slow movement towards
justice; but it does not permit a swift movement. A man is not allowed
to leap up and declare a certain state of things to be intrinsically
intolerable. To make the matter clear, it is better to take a specific
example. Certain of the idealistic vegetarians, such as Mr. Salt, say
that the time has now come for eating no meat; by implication they
assume that at one time it was right to eat meat, and they suggest (in
words that could be quoted) that some day it may be wrong to eat milk
and eggs. I do not discuss here the question of what is justice to
animals. I only say that whatever is justice ought, under given
conditions, to be prompt justice. If an animal is wronged, we ought to
be able to rush to his rescue. But how can we rush if we are, perhaps,
in advance of our time? How can we rush to catch a train which may not
arrive for a few centuries? How can I denounce a man for skinning cats,
if he is only now what I may possibly become in drinking a glass of
milk? A splendid and insane Russian sect ran about taking all the cattle
out of all the carts. How can I pluck up courage to take the horse out
of my hansom-cab, when I do not know whether my evolutionary watch is
only a little fast or the cabman's a little slow? Suppose I say to a
sweater, "Slavery suited one stage of evolution." And suppose he
answers, "And sweating suits this stage of evolution." How can I answer
if there is no eternal test? If sweaters can be behind the current
morality, why should not philanthropists be in front of it? What on
earth is the current morality, except in its literal sense--the morality
that is always running away?

Thus we may say that a permanent ideal is as necessary to the innovator
as to the conservative; it is necessary whether we wish the king's
orders to be promptly executed or whether we only wish the king to be
promptly executed. The guillotine has many sins, but to do it justice
there is nothing evolutionary about it. The favourite evolutionary
argument finds its best answer in the axe. The Evolutionist says, "Where
do you draw the line?" the Revolutionist answers, "I draw it _here_:
exactly between your head and body." There must at any given moment be
an abstract right and wrong if any blow is to be struck