Wasnotthedisproofreal?Doesnotarealevasionlurkunderthephrase’tendency’?Youmaysaythattheearthhasatendencytofallintothesun，andanother’tendency’tomoveawayfromthesun。Butitwouldbeabsurdtoarguethatwewerethereforeindangerofbeingburntorofbeingfrozen。Toexplainthelawofavitalprocess，wemayhavetoanalyseit，andthereforetoregarditasduetoconflictingforces；buttheforcesdonotreallyexistseparately，andinconsideringthewholeconcretephenomenonwemusttakethemasmutuallyimplied。Amanhasa’tendency’togrowtoofat；andanother’tendency’togrowtoothin。Thatsurelymeansthatonthewholehehasa’tendency’topreservethedesirablemean。Thephrase，then，canonlyhaveadistinctmeaningwhentheconflictingforcesrepresenttwoindependentorreallyseparableforces。TouseanillustrationgivenbyMalthus，wemightsaythatamanhada’tendency’togrowupwards；butwasrestrainedbyaweightonhishead。Themanhasthe’tendency，’becausewemayregardtheweightasaseparableaccident。Whenbothforcesareoftheessence，theseparate，tendencies，correspondmerelytoourwayofanalysingthefact。Butifonecanbeproperlyregardedasrelativelyaccidental，the’tendency’meansthewayinwhichtheotherwillmanifestitselfinactualcases。
　　In1829，SeniorputthispointtoMalthus。25What，heasked，doyouunderstandbya’tendency’
　　whenyouadmitthatthetendencyisnormallyoverbalancedbyothers?Malthusexplainshismeaningtobethateverynationsuffersfromevils’specificallyarisingfromthepressureofpopulationagainstfood。’Thewagesofthelabourerinoldcountrieshaveneverbeensufficienttoenablehimtomaintainalargefamilyatease。Thereisovercrowding，wemaysay，inEnglandnowastherewasinEnglandattheConquest；thoughfoodhasincreasedinagreaterproportionthanpopulation；andthepressurehasthereforetakenamilderform。This，again，isprovedbythefactthat，wheneverarelaxationofthepressurehasoccurred，whenplagueshavediminishedpopulation，orimprovementsinagricultureincreasedtheirsupplyoffood，thegaphasbeenatoncefilledup。Thepeoplehavenottakenadvantageofthetemporaryrelaxationofthechecktopreservethenewequilibrium，buthavetakenouttheimprovementbyamultiplicationofnumbers。Thestatementthenappearstobethatatanygiventimethepopulationisinexcess。
　　Menwouldbebetteroffiftheywerelessnumerous。But，ontheotherhand，thetendencytomultiplydoesnotrepresentaconstantforce，anirresistibleinstinctwhichwillalwaysbringmendowntothesamelevel，butsomethingwhich，infact，mayvarymaterially。Malthusadmits，infact，thatthe’elasticity’iscontinuallychanging；andthereforerepudiatestheinterpretationwhichseemedtomakeallimprovementhopeless。Why，then，distinguishthe’check’assomethingapartfromtheinstinct?If，inanycase，weacceptthisexplanation，doesnotthetheorybecomea’truism，’oratleastacommonplace，inoffensivebuthardlyinstructive?Doesitamounttomorethantheobviousstatementthatprudenceandforesightaredesirableandareunfortunatelyscarce?
　　III。MORALRESTRAINT
　　Thechangeinthetheoryof’checks’raisesanotherimportantquestion。Malthusnowintroducedamodificationuponwhichhissupporterslaidgreatstress。Inthenewversionthe’checks’whichproportionpopulationtomeansofsubsistencearenotsimply’viceandmisery，’but’moralrestraint，vice，andmisery。’26How，precisely，doesthismodifythetheory?Howarethedifferent’checks’
　　related?Whatespeciallyismeantby’moral’inthisconnection?Malthustakeshisethicalphilosophyprettymuchforgranted，butisclearlyaUtilitarianaccordingtotheversionofPaley。27HeagreeswithPaleythat’virtueevidentlyconsistsineducingfromthematerialswhichtheCreatorhasplacedunderourguidancethegreatestsumofhumanhappiness。’28Headdstothisthatour’naturalimpulsesare，abstractedlyconsidered，good，andonlytobedistinguishedbytheirconsequences。’Hunger，hesays，asBenthamhadsaid，isthesameinitself，whetheritleadstostealingaloafortoeatingyourownloaf。HeagreeswithGodwinthatmoralitymeansthe，calculationofconsequences，’29or，ashesayswithPaley，impliesthediscoveryofthewillofGodbyobservingtheeffectofactionsuponhappiness。Reasonthenregulatescertaininnateandpracticallyunalterableinstinctsbyenablingustoforetelltheirconsequences。Thereasonablemanisinfluencednotsimplybytheimmediategratification，butbyaforecastofalltheresultswhichitwillentail。InthesemattersMalthuswasentirelyatonewiththeUtilitariansproper，andseemstoregardtheirdoctrineasself-evident。
　　Henoticesbrieflyonelogicaldifficultythusintroduced。The’checks’arevice，misery，andmoralrestraint。
　　Butwhydistinguishvicefrommisery?Isnotconductviciouswhichcausesmisery，30andpreciselybecauseitcausesmisery?Herepliesthattoomit’vice’wouldconfuseourlanguage。Viciousconductmaycausehappinessinparticularcases；thoughitsgeneraltendencywouldbepernicious。
　　Theanswerisnotveryclear；andMalthus，Ithink，wouldhavebeenmorelogicalifhehadstucktohisfirsttheory，andregardedviceassimplyoneformofimprudence。Misery，thatis，orthefearofmisery，andtheindulgenceinconductwhichproducesmiseryarethe’checks’whichlimitpopulation；andthewholeproblemistomaketheultimatesanctionmoreoperativeupontheimmediateconduct。Manbecomesmorevirtuoussimplyashebecomesmoreprudent，andisthereforegovernedinhisconductbyrecognisingthewiderandmoreremoteseriesofconsequences。Thereis，indeed，theessentialdifferencethatthevirtuousmanactsonwhatevermotivesfromaregardtothe’greatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber，’
　　andnotsimplyfromself-regard。Stilltheultimateanddecisivecriterionisthetendencyofconducttoproducemisery；andifMalthushadcarriedthisthroughasrigorouslyasBentham，hewouldhavebeenmoreconsistent。
　　The’moralcheck’wouldthenhavebeensimplyadepartmentoftheprudential；
　　includingprudenceforothersaswellasforourselves。Onereasonforthechangeisobvious。Hisassumptionenableshimtoavoidcomingintoconflictwiththeacceptedmoralityofthetime。Onhisexposition’vice’
　　occasionallyseemsnottobeproductiveofmiserybutanalternativetomisery；andyetsomethingbadinitself。IsthisconsistentwithhisUtilitarianism?
　　ThevicesoftheSouthSeaislanders，accordingtohim，madefaminelessnecessary；and，iftheygavepleasureatthemoment，weretheynotonthewholebeneficial?Malthusagainreckonsamongvicespracticeswhichlimitthepopulationwithoutcausing’misery’directly。31Couldhelogicallycallthemvicious?Hewishestoavoidtheimputationofsanctioningsuchpractices，andthereforecondemnsthembyhismoralcheck；butitwouldbehardtoprovethathewasconsistentincondemningthem。Or，again，thereisanotherfamiliardifficulty。TheCatholicchurchencouragesmarriageasaremedyforvice；andtherebystimulatesbothpopulationandpoverty。
　　HowwouldMalthussolvetheproblem：isitbettertoencouragechastityandasuperabundanceofpeople，ortorestrictmarriageatthecostofincreasingtemptationtovice?Heseemstoevadethepointbysayingthatherecommendsbothchastityandabstinencefrommarriage，By’moralrestraint，’
　　asheexplains，hemeans’restraintfrommarriagefromprudentialmotives，withaconductstrictlymoralduringtheperiodofthisrestraint。’’I
　　havenever，’headds，’intentionallydeviatedfromthissense。’32Aman，thatis，shouldpostponetakingawife，andshouldnotconsolehimselfbytakingamistress。Heistorefrainfromincreasingtheillegitimateaswellasfromincreasingthelegitimatepopulation。ItisnotsurprisingthatMalthusadmitsthatthischeckhas’inpastagesoperatedwithinconsiderableforce。’33InfactMalthus，asathoroughlyrespectableanddecentclergyman，managesbytalkingaboutthe’moralrestraint’rathertoevadethantoanswersomeawkwardproblemsofconduct；butatthecostofsomeinconsequence。
　　Butanotherresultofthismodeofpatchinguphisargumentismoreimportant。The’vicesofmankind，’
　　hesaysinanunusuallyrhetoricalsummaryofhishistoricalinquiry，34’areactiveandableministersofdepopulation。Theyaretheprecursorsinthegreatarmyofdestruction，andoftenfinishthedreadfulworkthemselves。
　　Butshouldtheyfailinthewarofextermination，sicklyseasons，epidemics，pestilence，andplagueadvanceinterrificarray，andsweepofftheirthousandsandtenthousands。Shouldsuccessstillbeincomplete，giganticinevitablefaminestalksintherear，andatonemightyblowlevelsthepopulationwiththefoodoftheworld。’Thelifeoftherace，then，isastrugglewithmisery；itsexpansionisconstantlyforcingituponthisarrayofevils；andinproportiontotheelasticityistheseverityoftheevilswhichfollow。Thisisnotonlya’gloomyview，’butagainseemstosuggestthat’vice’isanalternativeto’misery。’Vicesarebad，itwouldseem，butatleasttheyobviatethenecessityfordiseaseandfamine。Malthusprobablysuppressedthepassagebecausehethoughtitliabletothisinterpretation。
　　Itindicates，however，arealawkwardness，ifnotsomethingmore，inhisexposition。Heherespeaksasiftherewasroomforafixednumberofguestsathisbanquet。Whatever，therefore，keepsthepopulationtothatlimitmustbesofargood。Ifhehadconsideredhis’moralcheck’morethoroughly，hemighthaveseenthatthisdoesnotcorrespondtohisrealmeaning。The’moral’andtheprudentialchecksarenotreallytobecontrastedasalternative，butco-operative。Everypopulation，viciousorvirtuous，mustofcourseproportionitsnumberstoitsmeansofsupport。Thatgivestheprudentialcheck。Butthemoralcheckoperatesbyalteringthecharacterofthepopulationitself。Fromthepurelyeconomicpointofview，viceisbadbecauseitlowersefficiency。Alazy，drunken，andprofligatepeoplewouldstarvewhereanindustrious，sober，andhonestpeoplewouldthrive。Thecheckofvicethusbringsthecheckofmiseryintoplayatanearlierstage。
　　Itlimitsbyloweringthevitalityandsubstitutingdegenerationforprogress。
　　Thecheck，therefore，isessentiallymischievous。Thoughitdoesnotmakethefieldsbarren，itlowersthepowerofcultivation。Malthushadrecognisedthiswhenhepointedout，aswehaveseen，thatemergencefromthesavagestatemeanttheinstitutionofmarriageandpropertyand，wemayinfer，thecorrelativevirtuesofchastity，industry，andhonesty。Ifmencanformlargesocieties，andmillionscanbesupportedwhereonceafewthousandswereatstarvationpoint，itisduetothecivilisationwhichateverystageimplies’moralrestraint’inawidersensethanMalthususedthephrase。Anincreaseofpopulationbysuchmeanswas，ofcourse，tobedesired。
　　IfMalthusemphasisesthisinadequately，itispartly，nodoubt，becausetheUtilitarianviewofmoralitytendedtoemphasisetheexternalconsequencesratherthanthealterationofthemanhimself。Yetthewiderandsounderviewislogicallyimpliedinhisreasoning——somuchsothathemighthaveexpressedhisrealaimmoreclearlyifhehadalteredtheorderofhisargument。Hemighthaveconsistentlytakenthesamelineasearlierwritersanddeclaredthathedesired，aboveallthings，theincreaseofpopulation。Hewouldhavehadindeedtoexplainthathedesiredtheincreaseofasoundandvirtuouspopulation；andthathastyandimprudentincreaseledtomiseryandtoademoralisationwhichwouldultimatelylimitnumbersintheworstway。Weshallseedirectlyhownearlyheacceptsthisview。
　　Meanwhile，byinsistingupontheneedoflimitation，hewasledtospeakoftenasiflimitationbyanymeanswasgoodandtheonethingneedful，andthepolemicagainstGodwininthefirsteditionhadgivenprominencetothissideofthequestionHadheputhisviewsinadifferentshape，hewouldperhapshavebeensoedifyingthathewouldhavebeendisregarded。
　　Hecertainlyavoidedthatrisk，andhadwhateveradvantageisgainedbystatingsounddoctrineparadoxically。
　　Weshall，Ithink，appreciatehisrealpositionbetterbyconsideringhisapproximationtothetheorywhich，asweknow，wassuggestedtoDarwinbyaperusalofMalthus，35thereisacloserresemblancethanappearsatfirst，thefirsteditionconcludesbytwochaptersafterwardsomitted，givingthephilosophicalapplicationofhistheory。Hetheresaysthatthe’worldisamightyprocessofGodnotforthetrialbutforthecreationandformationofthemind。’36Itisnot，asButlerthought，aplaceof’probation，’butasceneinwhichthehigherqualitiesaregraduallydeveloped。GodwinhadquotedFranklin’sviewthat’mind’wouldbecome’omnipotentovermatter。’Malthusholdsthat，asheputsit，’Godismakingmatterintomind。’ThedifferenceisthatMalthusregardsevilingeneralnotasasortofaccidentofwhichwecangetridbyreason；butastheessentialstimuluswhichbecomestheefficientcauseofintellectualactivity。Theevilsfromwhichmensufferraisesavagetribesfromtheirindolence，andbydegreesgiverisetothegrowthofcivilisation。Theargument，thoughthesechaptersweredroppedbyMalthus，wastakenupbyJ。B。Sumner，towhomherefersinlatereditions。37Itis，infact，animperfectwayofstatingatheoryofevolution。Thisappearsinhisowningchaptersuponthe’moralrestraint。’38Heexplainsthatmoralandphysicalevilsare’instrumentsemployedbytheDeity’toadmonishusagainstsuchconductasisdestructiveofhappiness。
　　Diseasesareindicationsthatwehavebrokenalawofnature。TheplagueofLondonwasproperlyinterpretedbyourancestorsasahinttoimprovethesanitaryconditionsofthetown。Similarly，wehavetoconsidertheconsequencesofobeyingourinstincts。Thedesireoffoodandnecessariesisthemostpowerfuloftheseinstincts，andnexttoitthepassionbetweenthesexes。Theyarebothgood，fortheyarebothnatural；buttheyhavetobeproperlycorrelated。To’virtuouslove’inparticularweowethe’sunnyspots’inourlives，wheretheimaginationmostlovestobask。Desireofnecessariesgivesusthestimulusofthecomfortablefireside；andloveaddsthewifeandchildren，withoutwhomthefiresidewouldlosehalfitscharm。Now，asarule，thesexualpassionisapttobeinexcess。Thefinalcauseofthisexcessisitselfobvious。Wecannotbutconceivethatitisanobjectof’theCreatorthattheearthshouldbereplenished。’39Tosecurethatobject，itisnecessarythat’thereshouldbeatendencyinthepopulationtoincreasefasterthanfood。’Ifthetwoinstinctsweredifferentlybalanced，menwouldbecontentthoughthepopulationofafertileregionwerelimitedtothemosttriflingnumbers。Hencetheinstincthasmercifullybeenmadesopowerfulastostimulatepopulation，andthusindirectlyandeventuallytoproduceapopulationatoncelargerandmorecomfortable。