 First edition cover | |
| Author | J. Howard Moore |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | |
| Genre |
|
| Publisher | The Ward Waugh Company |
Publication date | 1899 |
| Publication place | United States |
| Media type | Print (hardcover) |
| Pages | 275 |
| OCLC | 5340920 |
| Text | Better-World Philosophy at theInternet Archive |
Better-World Philosophy: A Sociological Synthesis is an 1899 philosophical and sociological treatise by American zoologist and philosopherJ. Howard Moore. Drawing onethics,sociology, andevolutionary theory, the book presents Moore's theory of moral and social progress as grounded in the unity of life and the extension of ethical concern to allsentient beings. It explores how desire, labor, heredity, and cooperation shape moral development and social organization, and argues that education andsocial reform can advance human and animal welfare.
Upon its release,Better-World Philosophy received a mixed critical response. Some reviewers, includingThe Literary World, described Moore's outlook as pessimistic, while others, such as theJournal of Education and theAdvocate of Peace, praised its clarity and ethical seriousness. The book was endorsed by figures includingHenry Demarest Lloyd,Robert G. Ingersoll,George D. Herron, andJohn Peter Altgeld, and attracted the attention of English humanitarianHenry S. Salt, who began corresponding with Moore.
According to historian Donna L. Davey,Better-World Philosophy was Moore's first major work and reflected both his moral idealism and his belief in moral education and eugenics as instruments of social improvement. The book was first published in Chicago by the Ward Waugh Publishing Company in 1899, reissued byCharles H. Kerr & Company in 1906, and published in London byErnest Bell in 1907.
.png)
J. Howard Moore (1862–1916) was an American zoologist and philosopher. He was an early advocate ofanimal rights andethical vegetarianism. Moore's scientific background andmoral philosophy deeply influenced his writings. He was also associated with the broaderhumanitarian movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which sought to improve the treatment of both humans and animals.[1]
Better-World Philosophy was part of a larger body of work by Moore including titles such as,Why I Am a Vegetarian (1895),The Universal Kinship (1906) andThe New Ethics (1907). These works collectively advanced his belief in the interconnectedness of all life and the need for a moral evolution that would lead to a more compassionate world.[1]
Better-World Philosophy is organized into nine sections, each outlining an aspect of Moore's sociological and ethical system. The chapters progress from human labor and understanding of nature to moral and social evolution, culminating in collective and individual ethical cultivation.[2] In a brief prefatory note, he writes that the book "does not claim to be infallible—simply serious."[3]: Prefatory note
Moore begins by describing humanity as part of the animal world and driven by desire. To satisfy these desires, people must manage and foresee the inanimate universe. Industry, he writes, is the organized management of nature for human purposes. Labor defines humanity's relation to the universe, and people seek to escape it through shirking, machinery, and cooperation.[3]: 11–48
This chapter identifies two major "blunders" made by humankind: misunderstanding the universe as lawless, and conceiving the inanimate world as conscious or voluntary. These errors, according to Moore, distort the human approach to knowledge and progress.[3]: 49–73
Moore defines the social problem as the relation of each individual to the rest of the universe. It arises from the plurality and sociability of life. Even when socialized, this relation remains the same in principle, but is complicated by conscious interdependence among individuals. Social desires, evolved through associated life, are satisfied by cooperation rather than domination. Moore rejects the supposed infallibility ofnature arguing that morality must be created consciously.[3]: 73–91
In the nature of living beings, Moore identifies two elements: the impulse to act for oneself and the impulse to act for others. He discusses the origin of these tendencies, arguing that egoism developed through the struggle of individuals to survive, while altruism arose chiefly from struggles between groups. This balance between self-interest and sympathy forms the moral basis of social evolution.[3]: 92–121
Moore surveys the dominance of egoism in human and animal life. He describes human egoism as especially insolent and extravagant in its treatment of other species and of fellow humans. The persistence of selfish behavior, he suggests, is the chief obstacle to moral and social progress.[3]: 122–138
The social ideal concerns the "ideal relation" among all beings in the universe — the relation that best promotes the satisfaction of universal desire. Moore holds that this relation mirrors what any individual would wish for themselves: a harmony of interests across the animate universe. He argues that this principle is affirmed by the teachings of human sages and by historical, biological, and cosmic tendencies.[3]: 139–168
Moore defines the nature of any being as the character of its conscious tendencies to act. The nature of organisms results from the interaction of heredity and environment. He describes environment as atrinity of inanimate, animate, and internal factors, each contributing to evolution.[3]: 169–201
This chapter addresses heredity and moral progress through education and environmental influence. Moore argues that humanity can regenerate itself through conscious modification of the "generative stream", improving conditions by environmental and social selection rather than by chance. He discusses the role of punishment, the neutralization of harmful selection, and the displacement of harsh natural discrimination by deliberate self-culture.[3]: 202–242
The final chapter turns to personal ethics. Moore maintains that true culture is not merely intellectual but moral. The inculcation of altruism, he writes, is as important as the accumulation of knowledge. Because people are naturally egoistic, conscious culture must work to eliminate selfishness with the same effort once devoted to developing intellect. He concludes with the call to reform human nature through moral self-discipline and "neural" (mental) transformation.[3]: 243–275
In theOakland Enquirer, A. A. Denison referred toBetter-World Philosophy as a "suggestive and valuable" contribution to progressive thought. He described Moore's style as clear and logical and noted his use of evolutionary ideas in discussions of ethics and social reform. Denison regarded the book as an intelligent and useful guide for readers interested in social improvement and the development of moral and economic thought.[4]
A review inThe Literary World described Moore as an "incurable pessimist", arguing that his outlook focused too heavily on the darker aspects of human nature and cruelty. The reviewer acknowledged Moore's moral earnestness but criticised his tone as overly severe and despairing, questioning whether a philosophy so pessimistic could inspire social improvement. Despite this, the review recognised the book's call for altruistic education and reform as sincere, though doubted its practical impact.[5]
In theJournal of Education, the book was described as clear, original, and likely to exert considerable influence, with the reviewer noting its readability and the author's enthusiasm.[6] TheAdvocate of Peace characterised it as a thoughtful examination of the relationship between social inheritance and environment, emphasising its advocacy of cooperation and moral development as means of social improvement.[7]
The School Journal reported thatLester Frank Ward found the book notable for its depth and originality of thought, whileDavid Starr Jordan described it as lively in style and bold in conclusion, recommending it to readers interested in social advancement.[8]The People's Press endorsed the book and printed statements of support fromHenry Demarest Lloyd,Robert G. Ingersoll,George D. Herron, andJohn Peter Altgeld.[9]
After reviewing the book,Henry S. Salt, the English humanitarian and author ofAnimals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress (1892), began a correspondence with Moore that developed into a lasting friendship.[1]
In her biographical entry on Moore for theDictionary of Literary Biography, historian Donna L. Davey describedBetter-World Philosophy as Moore's first major work, observing that contemporary reviews, though mixed, often remarked on his bold style and intensity of opinion. She noted that while some critics viewed his outlook as pessimistic, it instead reflected his moral seriousness and desire to reform human attitudes toward life and ethics. Davey wrote that the book expressed Moore's belief in the unity of all life and the extension of moral concern to animals capable of feeling, outlining his vision of an altruistic society shaped by evolutionary principles. She also observed that Moore argued in favour of eugenics, cautioned against reckless reproduction, and maintained that the cultivation of altruism should begin in childhood through moral education fostering sympathy for all beings.[1]
Better-World Philosophy was first published in Chicago by the Ward Waugh Company in 1899.[1] A second edition was issued byCharles H. Kerr & Company in 1906, as part of itsInternational Library of Social Science series.[10] This was followed by a London edition published byErnest Bell in 1907.[11]
Media from Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
