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.