V. Stimulation

CHAPTER V. STIMULATION. § '214. To write sundry chapters on the ethics of individ uallife and to say nothing about the taking of stirnulants, is out of the question. While, on large parts of private con duct, most rnen pass no moral judgments, and aSSUlne that they are subject to none; over that part of private conduct which concerns the drinking of fermented liquors, lnost men, passing strong Illoral judgments, unhesitatingly aSSUlne that ethics exercises peremptory rule; and the inclusion ,vithin the domain of ethics of questions concerning alcoholic stimulants, is follo'wed by inclusion of questions concerning opiurn-eating. We may observe here, as we have observed before, that the reprobation of practices which, in excess, are certainly injurious, and are held by many to be injurious altogether, is practically limited to practices which are primarily pleasur able. A man nlay bring on hinlself chronic rheumatism by daily careless exposure, or an incurable nervous disorder by over-application; and though he may thus vitiate his life and dilninish his usefulness in a far greater degree than by occasionally taking too much ,vine, yet his physical trans gression rneets with only nlild disapproval, if even that. But in these cases the transgression is displeasurable, whereas excess in \vine is pleasurable; and the dalnnable thing in the misconduct is the production of pleasure by it.

If it be said that this contrast of moral estimates is due to STIMULATION. 509 the perception that there is danger of falling into injurious habits which are primarily pleasurable, while there is no dan ger of falling into injurious habits which are prilnarily pain ful; the reply is that though we naturally suppose this to be true, yet it is not true. The obligations men are under, or suppose themselves to be under, lead them in multitudinous cases to persist in sedentary lives, to work too Inany hours, to breathe impure air, and so forth, spite of the feelings which protest-spite of continual proofs that they are injur ing themselves. Clearly it is the vague notion that gratifi cation is vicious, which c~uses the condemnation of gratifying transgressions ,vhile ullgratifying transgressions are con demned but slightly or not at all. Here we have to consider the matter, as far as we can, apart from popular judgments, and guided only byphysiological considerations, ' § 215. It cannot, I think, be doubted that from the point of view of absolute ethics, stimulants of every kind must be reprobated; or, at any rate, that daily use of them nlust be reprobated. Few, if any, will contend that they playa need ful part in complete life.

All normal ingesta subserve the vital processes either by furnishing materials which aid in the formation and ,repair of tissues, or 'materials which, during their trans formations, yield heat and force, or the material-,vater --which serves as a vehicle. A stilnulant, alcoholic or other, is neither tissue-food, nor heat-food, nor force-food. It simply affects the rate of rnolecular change-exalting it and then, under ordinary circumstances, if taken in con siderable quantity, depressing it. Now matters which can be used neither for building up the body nor as stores of -force, do not increase the sum of vital manifestations, but , only alter· the distribution of them. And since, in a being fully fitted for the life it 4as to lead, the functions are already adjusted to the require:ments, it does not seem that any ad· 510 THE ETHICS OF INDIVIDUAL LIFE. vantage can be obtained by changing the established bal ance.

This inference is far-reaching-carrie~. us beyond the point to which the total-abstainers from fermented· liquors wish to go. Tea and coffee also must be, excluded from dietaries. The vegeto-alkalies, to which they owe their effects, are just as little akin to food properly so c~lled, as is alcohol; ,and, like alcohol, simply modify. for a time the rate of lllolecular change, causing greater genesis of energy during one interval with the effect of diminishing it .during another. From the physiological· point of view, therefore, the use of these must be condemned if the· uS(j of alcohol. is condemned. Should it be said that the . condemnation ,of the last is evoked by the liability to abuse, it may be replied that the liability to abuse holds of the others also; though·the· mis chiefs wrought are neither so frequent nor so conspicuous. In France there are occasional deaths from coffee-drinking, and in England undue drinking of tea not infrequently causes nervousness.

§ 216. But ,vhile, from the point of view.of absolute ethics, the use of stimulants seems indefensible, we may still ask ,vhether relative ethics affords any justification for it whether, under existing conditions, imperfectly adapted as we are to the social state, and obliged to diverge from natural requirements, we may.not use, stimulants to countervail· the consequent .mischiefs. It is a fact of some significance that throughout the world, among unallied races· and in all stages 0:£ progress, we find in· use one or other agent which agreeably affects the nervous system-opium in China, tobacco among the American Indians, bang in India, hashish in sundry Eastern places, a narcotic .fungus in Northern Asia, kava. among the Polynesians, chicaandcoca in Ancient Peru, and various fermented· liquors besides the~ne of. Europeans, STIMULATION. 511 84 and the beer of various African tribes-the soma of the prirniti ve Aryans and the pulque of the Mexicans. Not that this universality of habits' of stimulation justifies them in face of the evidence that diseases often result; but it suggests the question wThether there is not a con nexion between the use of some exciting or sedative agent, and the kind of life circumstances entail-a life here monotonous, there laborious, and in other places full of privations. Possibly these drugs and liquors may some times make tolerable an existence which would be other wise intolerable; or, at any rate, so far mitigate the bodily or mental pains caused, as to diminish the mischiefs done by them.

Various testimonies are to the effect that where the daily life is one entailing much wear and tear of brain, the seda tive influence of tobacco is useful-serves to check that nerv ous waste which otherwise the continuance of thought and > anxiety would produce. > In a normal state, those parts of the system which have been taxed cease to act when the strain is over: the supply of blood is shut' off, and they be come quiescent. But in the abnormal states established -in many by overwork, it is otherwise. The parts which have been active become congested, and remain active when action is no longer demanded. Thinking and feeling cannot be stopped, and there occurs an expenditure which is not only useless but injurious. Hence a justification for using an agent which prevents waste of tissue and economizes the energies. Again, where the constitutional powers are flagging, and a day's work proves so· exhausting that the ability to digest partially fails, it n1ay be held' that vascular action and nervous discharge may advantageously be raised by alcohol to the extent needful for effectually dealing with food; since a good meal well digested serves to render the sys tem fit for another day's work, which otherwise it would not be.

512 THE ETHICS OF INDIVIDUAL LIFE. There are those, too, in whom undue application estab lishes a state of nervous irritation which is mitigated or ended by a dose of opiurn; and the life may sOlnetimes be such that the state thus dealt with frequently recurs. If this happens the use of the relnedy appears justified. § 217. Even total abstainers admit that alcoholic bever ages may rightly be used for medicinal purposes; and their admission, consistently interpreted, ilnplies that, as above contended, stimulants in general nul,y properly be employed, not only where positive illness exists, but where there is inability to cope with the requirements of life. For if a very conspicuous departure from the normal state may often be best treated by brandy or wine, it cannot well be denied that a less conspicuous departure, occurring perhaps daily, may similarly be treated. Constitutional debility, or the debility ·which comes vvith advancing years, may, like the debility. of an invalid, be advantageously met by temporarily raising the power of the system at times when it has to do work conducive to restoration-that is, when food has to be digested, and sometimes when sleep has to be obtained. But there hence results a defence only for such uses of stimu lants as aid the systenl in repairing itself. 'Vhen, as by taking alcoholic liquors between meals, or by the hypoder mic injection of morphia, there is achieved a telnporary exaltation of power or feeling, "Thich conduces to no restora tive end, reprobation rightly takes the place of approbation.

In the order of nature, normal pleasures are the concolni tants of normal activities, and pleasures which are achieved by gratuitous deviations from the normal have no ethical sanctions. One exception only should be made. Stimulants may be taken with advantage when the monotony of ordinary life is now and then broken by festive entertainments. As im plied in a preceding chapter, daily repetition of the same activities, which in our state are inevitably specialized, necesSTIMULATION. 513 sitates undue taxing of certain parts· of the system. Breaches in the uniformity therefore yield benefits by furthering restoration of equilibrium. The functions, chronically kept out of balance, are aided in returning to a balance. Hence it happens that .. social lneetings at which, along with mental exhilaration, there goes the taking of abundant and varied food, and wine even in large quantity, often prove highly salutary-are not followed by injurious reactions but leave behind invigoration. Such m~ans used for such ends, how ever, Inust be used but occasionally: if often repeated they defeat themselves.

§ 218. To SUlll up what has been said in a tentative wa.y on this difficult question :-we may, in the first place, con clude that absolute ethics, in so far as it concerns individual life, can give no countenance to. the daily use of stimulants. They can have no place in a perfectly norlnal order. In such approxitnately normal life as that enjoyed during their early days by vigorous persons, there is also no place for them. So long as there is nothing to prevent the full discharge of all the organic functions, there can be no need for agents which telnporarily exalt them. What ethics has to say in the matter must take the· form of an interdict. Only when the excessive obligations which life often entails produce more or less of daily prostration, or when from constitutional feebleness or the diminished strength of old age, the ordinary tax on the energies is somewhat greater than can be effectually Inet, does there seeln a valid reason for using· exciting agents, alcoholic or other; and then only when they are taken in such wise as to aid repara tive processes.

Beyond this there is a defence for such.occasional uses of these agents as serves, when joined with raised nutrition and enli vening circumstances, to. take the system out of its rou tine, which in all cases diverges somewhat, if not much, from· a perfect balance. CHAPTER VI. CULTURE. § 219. Taken in its widest sense, culture means prepara tion for complete living. It includes, in the first place, all such discipline and all such knowledge as are needful for, or conducive to, efficient self-sustentation and sustentation of family. And it includes, in the second place, all such de velopment of the faculties at large, as fits them for utilizing those various sources of pleasure which Nature and Hu manity supply to responsive minds. The first of these two divisions of culture has more than an ethical sanction: it is ethically enjoined. Acquisition of fitness for carrying on the business of life is primarily a duty to self and secondarily a duty to others. If under the head of this fitness we COIn prise, as we 11lust, such skill as is needful for those who are to be manually occupied, as well as skill of every higher kind, it becomes manifest that (save with those who have sustentation gratis) lack of it makes a healthy physical life impracticable, and makes impracticable the nurture of dependents. Further, the neglect to acquire a power of adequately lllaintaining self and offspring, neces sitates either the burdening of others in furnishing aid, or else, if they refuse to do this, necessitates that infliction of pain upon them which the contemplation of misery causes.