THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY.

223

THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY.'

JAMES HAYDEN TUFTS.

THE point of view of the studentat the presenttime in

approachingsuch a problem as that of the ethics
of the family makes his task less simple than that of
old. He cannot depend upon an infallible intuition or
an infalliblededuction. He must consider consequences,
on the one hand, and psychologyof men and women, on
the other; he must consider social conditions and the
evolution of human personality. Doubtless there are
seeminglyconstant factors-the thrillof passion and the
necessityof rational control; the love of motherfor child
and of child formother;the effectsof habit and the power
of social convention; the conflict between individual
choice and public opinion-all these in a sense reappear
in generationaftergeneration. They claim theirplace in
any treatment,but love betweenthe sexes has been made
in many respects a different thing because of all that fic-
tion and poetry, as well as churchand state,have done to it.
Recently the industrialrevolution,the conditionsof city
life, the progressof higher education, the general move-
ment towardemancipationof woman,have combinedso to
change both the controllingconditionsof human life and
the mental attitudes and temper of men, women, and
children,that the problems long since comfortablyand
confidently settledclamorforreconsideration. Ethics may
or may not reach conclusions as to marriage, divorce,
economic dependence of woman, parental responsibility,
distinctionbetweenlegitimateand illegitimatebirth,which
agree with the judgments of the past, but no ethics can
simply reaffirm these past judgments without noting the
changed personalitiesand changed conditions.
'An addressdeliveredbeforetheSectionon theFamilyand theCommunity
at the National Conference
of Charitiesand Correction,
Baltimore,May 15,
1915.
224 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

We may wellrecognize,firstof all, that insteadof the

ethicsofthe family,we mightmoreproperly speak ofthe
ethicsoffamilies, fortheethicalquestionswhichare really
uppermostin the middleclass familyof to-dayare very
differentfromthosewhichare at the frontin the working-
class family. Nevertheless, thereare some generalcon-
siderationswhichapplyto both.
Moralistssometimes makea distinction betweenpositive
and negativemorality. Positive moralityoffersvalues:
negativemoralitysays "Thou shalt not!" Thereis per-
haps no fieldof ethicswhichin the past has had a point
of viewmoreprevailingly negativethanthe moralsofthe
family.
(1) It has said littleabout a dutyto marry,but much
againstsexualrelationsexceptin marriage;littleabout a
rightchoice,muchaboutdivorce.
(2) It has said littleas to thepositivevalue ofchildren,
but has tabooed such questionsas restriction or illegiti-
macy.
(3) Sincethe wholesexualnatureis so liableto become
the cause of evil,it has urgedthat we knowand talk as
littleaboutit as possible;that we bringup childrenupon
the basis that innocenceis the onlyvirtueforthe young,
and that thereis in anycase no positivevalue in at least
the physicalside oflove.
We are notentirely satisfied withthisnegativemorality.
It doesn'tworkwell in severalparticulars. Some of the
factswhichchallengeattentionare the following:
(1) Thereis a smalland decreasing birth-rateamongthe
educatedclasses,whichmeans,unfortunately, that these
classes are constantlypassingout fromour population.
In thiscountrysomeofus, at least,believethatthestock
whichsettledin New England and moved on into New
York and the middlewestwas a good stock. We do not
like to see it disappear,but it certainlyis disappearing,
and relativelyto otherstocksit will,accordingto present
indications, in the futurelifeof
be less and less influential
the country.
 THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY. 225

(2) There is increasingdivorce.

(3) There is in some parts of the westernworldincreas-
ing illegitimacy. This may or may not be true for this
country,since we have so little accurate registrationthat
it is difficultto know, but in certain European countries
the increase, particularlyin large cities, is striking. In
Berlin,betweenthe years 1891 and 1909, legitimatebirths
decreased 19 per cent (from47,000 to 38,000); illegitimate
increased 39 per cent, and are now at the rate of about
one in five of all births.
(4) The double standard of morals persists,and prosti-
tutionas a profitablecommercialenterpriseis as strongas
ever.
(5) The "social diseases" are far too prevalent.
(6) Various social agencies findso many of their prob-
lems thrustupon them by bad familyconditionsthat the
waste and expense of the situation are becomingincreas-
ingly evident. The defectivechildren,the retarded chil-
dren in the schools, the weak who swell the number of
prostitutes,the boy criminalsin our large cities, the de-
sertedwives and children,the familytroubleswhich come
to lightin our juvenile courts and courts of domesticrela-
tions, all tell of failureswhich may or may not be out of
proportionto what should be expected in any human
institution,but are, at any rate, sufficiently numerousto
be a challengeto our existingethics.
(7) Finally, the vast literatureupon various aspects of
the woman question reflectsthe frictionwhich may not
findoutlet in the courts or the charities,but which,none
the less, is very real in certainclasses of families.
Negative moralityhad good reasons formany of its pro-
hibitions,and when therewas no reason that we may now
wish to call a good reason, there was at least an explana-
tion. Passion needed and always will need stern limits
set by reason, by authority,and by public opinionforthe
protectionof both men and women, and particularlyfor
the protectionof women. There is also an elementof true
psychologyin the taboos which the race has fixed upon
226 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

excessive attentionto the sexual life. While the original

motive for these taboos may very likely have been in
large part fear of contractingfeminineweakness or fear
of the ghosts that might be presumed to hover about at
such a time as the birth of a child, there is, no doubt, a
certain instinctivemodestywhich is one of the strongest
supports to chastityand purity and which should not be
broken down. Besides these valid reasons, there are
special explanations for our inherited attitude. When
people lived in small townsand knew each otherintimately
from childhood, when parents knew the habits of their
neighbors'childrenalmost as well as those of their own,
and when daughterscould have the parents' advice, there
was no such tendencyto hasty marriagesbetweenpersons
who had had scarcely any opportunityto become ac-
quainted as now exists in the large cities. Under such
conditions,too, therewas probably far less communicable
disease. On the other hand, there was no need of espe-
cially inculcatingthe duty of marriageor the desirability
of raising children. When no other way of support lay
open to women,the pressurewas strongin the directionof
marriage. When people live largely an agricultural life,
childrenare very little added expense,and are not only a
joy, but frequentlya great help to their parents in the
house and on the farm. Among higherclasses the impor-
tance of maintainingthe family name and transmitting
familywealth was a stronginducementwhich seems still
to operate,especiallyin royaltyand in the countryfamilies
of Europe; but there is no great sentimentabout passing
down the familyflat,and indeed the absence of any such
family traditionis well suggested by the question of the
child of one of my colleagues, when passing by a house
where the parents had lived-"Is this one of the houses
where I was born?" But there were other grounds less
rational. The double standard, the harsh inequalities
before the law, are survivals of militaryand aristocratic
society. The sex taboos are in part due to outgrown
 THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY. 227
superstitions,to crude beliefs about original sin, to
degradingdoctrineabout woman.
Besides the failuresof negative morality,there are cer-
tain new values which demand recognition.
(1) For the middle class family the great factor is
undoubtedly the new consciousness of personal rights,
powers, and interestson the part of women. We cannot
expect to have highereducation, new avenues of achieve-
ment, new means of economic support, new possibilities
of freedom,and still retain the special type of monogamy
which was characteristicof earlier civilization, and espe-
cially of a civilizationwhichin manyways was brutalin its
restraintupon woman. Reinforcingthese is the extraor-
dinaryindustrialchange which has taken the productive
workfromwoman,has made her a consumer,and has made
it difficult,if not impossible,for her to maintain, on the
one hand, her activity as an intellectual or executive
person,and, on the other,her positionas wifeand mother.
(2) The second great positive value is the new recog-
nition of the child. Our vast public school system,origi-
nally organizedforprotectionto the state, is now definitely
valued as an instrumentfor giving the child an oppor-
tunity to make the most of himselfand to develop his
powers. Great advances in medical science have re-
strictedinfantilediseases and magnifiedthe general esteem
of the importanceof every human life. Societies for the
care of orphans or neglected children, juvenile courts,
associations of nurses,are indices of a growingconscience.
This increased valuation upon childrenis not satisfiedto
continuethe old proverbwhich Ezekiel contendedagainst
more than two thousand years ago: "The fathers have
eaten sour grapes,and the children'steethare set on edge."
Our older theologysent childrenunbaptized to limbo or to
hell because of theirparents' omissionsor of the ancestral
sin. For some time theology has balked at attributing
such a destiny to the infant, but we are yet very slow
about going the whole way. We have thus far hesitated
to give the child a fair chance irrespectiveof his parents.
Vol. XXVI.-No. 2. 6
228 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

We have assumed that the child born in a verypoor family

cannot expect good sanitationor opportunityforhealthful
play, or as good an education as the child born to the
well-to-do. In the case of the illegitimatechild we have
been even more chary. But if I am not mistaken, the
next generationwill look for some way to controland, if
necessary, punish reckless sex relations without visiting
positivelyupon the childrenthe iniquityof the fathers.
(3) A thirdnew value is that of the positive significance
of sex and of motherhood. There has, of course, always
been a literature of motherhood,and individuals have
valued their own experiencesas mothers or as children,
but so much of the older valuation has been associated
with limitationsupon the life and activityof woman that
it is not surprisingto find certain writersminimizingthe
significanceof sex in woman's life. They claim that sex
has been exaggerated. They would settle the conflict
betweenhome and industryby encouragingwomento enter
gainfuloccupations. They would make motherhoodinci-
dental,ratherthan principal,in determiningwoman's plan
of living. In contrast with these proposed solutions,
which magnifythe value of independentoccupation and
productive work in the world of industryor commerce,
Ellen Key is distrustfulof the effectupon woman's life
of organized industry,and seeks a new appreciation of
woman's sex life. It is not necessary to decide that all
womenmust conformto one pattern,but takingwoman as
a whole, and taking business and industryas now organ-
ized, I should side with Ellen Key as contrastedwith the
opposing school. For a minorityof women the path of
freedom and development may lie through independent
economicactivity,and in case they have families,through
such systematized care for children as would free the
motherfor her intellectualor active pursuitsoutside, but
forthe majorityI believe that greaterhappiness,as well as
fullerdevelopment,lies ratherin magnifyingfamilyvalues
and freeing them from the survivals of subordination,
 THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY. 229
of unscientificand ill-organizedmethods,which belong to
formerdays.
(4) The fourthpositive value which demands recogni-
tion in the ethics of the family is the value of sound,
healthy, and well-rearedstocks, not merelyfor the indi-
viduals whose enjoymentand achievementare concerned,
but for the communityand the state. The pendulum
swings back and forthbetween nature and nurture,be-
tween the importanceof well-bredchildrenand the impor-
tance of good environment. Just at present biology is
laying great stress upon the former. With its Mendelian
law as an instrumentof analysis,biologyis certainlybring-
ing before us more forciblythan ever the importanceof
heredity. And as we are learningto think in terms not
merelyof to-day,but of to-morrow, not merelyof the local
community,but of the nation, we are gaininga new con-
sciousness of the tremendousvalue to society of certain
stocks. If anythingwas needed to re-enforcethis biolog-
ical truth,the lessons of the war are fulfillingthat task.
It was the Boer war that awakened England to the dete-
rioration of her population in physical stature. The
present war has been a tremendous object-lesson of the
value of givingthoughtto health and fitness. It is even
conceivable that it may make its lesson so impressive
as in a measure to reclaim from other formsof wastage
the frightfulwaste of the best stock which it is itself
displaying.
These four new values-the value of women's freedom
and development,the value of the child, the value of sex
and especially of motherhood,and, lastly, the value of
sound stock well reared for national life and for the life
of the world-must be reckonedwith in the new ethics of
the family. We can no longer meet the situation by
taboos and negations,by ascetic restraintsor sentimental
gush, nor by mere appeals to authorityor reiterationsof
past conventions. We must look forwardand think of
the familyin its largerrelations. If we retain its essential
features,it must be because they respondto these positive
230 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

values and not because they have come down fromthe

past.
What are the lines along whichour ethical consciousness
is likely to move in recognizingthese new values? Is it
likely to shiftin the directionof free love, so called, in
the directionof economic independencefor women,in the
directionof less of family care and more of public care
and control?
The challenge to existinginstitutionscomes partly on
the groundof personalfreedom. " Of all dogmas, monog-
amy has been that which has claimed most human sacri-
fices." It comes partly on the groundthat many women
have no opportunityfor marriage,whetherthis is due to
such generalurban conditionsas increasedlivingexpenses,
or to such special conditionsas the largerrelative number
of women in certain European cities. Many are thus
excluded fromlife's greatest experience,fromits greatest
moral opportunity. Resenting these constraintsand lim-
itations,some would abolish the double standardby having
woman adopt man's standard rather than, as is more
commonly advocated, by having man adopt woman's.
Others would shifttoward freerdivorceor towardincreas-
ing responsibilitytoward children, and sanctioning as
moral any union whichrecognizesits responsibilityin this
respect. In contrast with present marriages,which are
too oftencommercialor legal only,it is claimed that unions
based on love and such responsibilityfor childrenwould
give better children and insure more genuinely moral
relations.
It is scarcely probable that society will change the
double standard by adopting what is meant in this con-
nection by the man's standard. Even if the stricter
standard forwoman was originallybased largely on prop-
erty conceptions,it has, none the less, proved its right,
not by increasing man's privileges, but by establishing
woman's dignity. There is, however, one qualification
on the otherside. The reader of Forel and Havelock Ellis
will not hastily assume that woman's standard is neces-
 THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY. 231
sarily perfectin all respects. It is possible that some-
times sex indifferenceis mistaken for a positive virtue
instead of being regarded as a defect-as it is from the
point of view of familylife.
As regards proposals for freer unions regulated by
responsibilityforchildren,no one who reads Ellen Key, the
ablest representativeof this doctrine,can fail to recognize
that a profoundappreciationof woman's personalityand
of the importance of the child underlies her thought.
The beliefthat the way out lies in the direction-of empha-
sizing,ratherthan minimizing,the importanceof sex and
motherhoodin woman's life will commenditselfto many
biologists and psychologists. Her insistence that moral
progresslies along the lines of increasingthe consciousness
of responsibilityfor the child, and that this increasing
responsibility,if taken seriously, would mean a higher
level of familylife than is found in perhaps the majority
of cases, will be recognizedby the moralist as in accord'
with the general line of moral progressfromexternal to
inner responsibility. The defectsin her treatment,as I
see them,are due to an inadequate psychologyof love and
to an overemphasisupon the individual aspect of person-
ality. "A person can, therefore,no more promiseto love
or not to love than he can promise to live long" is her
statement. This regards love as chiefly an emotion
entirelyout of controlof choice and will. It makes this
emotion the test of the moralityof the sex relations; it
believes this to be the best guaranteeof the birthof better
children. I conceivethisto be bad psychology. Undoubt-
edly the thrill of emotion is only partially subject to
control. None of us may be able to avoid the quiver of
fear when thundercrashes, or the beginnings,at least, of
anger at outrageoustreatment;but we say it is the achieve-
ment of characterto controlthese,emotions,and the brave
man stays at his post in spite of thunder.' Conversely,
the will may indirectlydo much to controlthe conditions
under which emotion is likely to be felt. The man who
looks too long may get involved beyond the powerto stop,
232 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

but the man of characterwill knowwhen to stop, and will

avoid situationsthat are dangerous. And, on the positive
side, love stands for much more than emotion. It is the
resolute purpose to seek another's good. Such resolute
purpose can be maintainedeven when physical attractive-
ness wanes and the thrillof emotionno longeris hot in the
blood. It will show itself in crises of sickness or great
need, although in the every-dayround of events it may
easily be subconscious. Such a purpose and the gradual
effectof habit in adjusting personalities to each other,
so that as ideas, joys, and sorrowsare shared a compan-
ionship far more stable in its basis than the passion of
youth supervenes, is the psychological ground for the
moralideal oflife-longmarriage. And whenwe add to this
the importanceto the child of two parents, rather than
one, we have the basis on which,in the great majorityof
cases, the institutionin substantiallyits presentformis, I
believe, likely to remain as the ideal.
But even could love be so controlled,Key holds it ought
not to be: The life-treeof a human being, in her opinion,
is like the trees of the forest,not like those of a formal
garden. "Its beauty depends upon the freedom of the
boughs to take unexpected curves." "One branch unex-
pectedly shoots out and anotherunaccountablywithers."
Personalityis the ultimate test of moral value, and "un-
conditionalfidelityto one personmay be just as disastrous
to the personalityas unconditionalcontinuancein a faith
or an employment."
This is a half-truth. Unconditionalfidelityto one who,
by persistent adultery, cruelty, debauchery, makes de-
cency, self-respect,and proper conditions for children
impossible,if it is ever justifiableas an act of voluntary
renunciationin certain exceptional cases, is no general
principle of ethics and ought not to be required by law.
The time is soon coming when an awakened conscience
will regardvenerealdisease as an axiomatic bar to cohabi-
tation, and, unless innocentlycontracted, as ground for
divorce. But to admit and insist that fidelityunder such
 THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY. 233
conditions is notdemandedby goodethicsis verydifferent
fromsettingup as our standardthe trees of the forest.
Civilization,afterall, is a garden. No one may consider
his own needsapartfromhis dependence uponall and the
dependenceof othersupon him. Many a branchwhich
mightgrowin a forestmustbe cut in a garden. Person-
ality,initsprofound meaning, is indeedan ethicalstandard;
but thismeaningrequiresus to considernot merelyim-
pulses and tides of emotion,no matterhow clamorous,
butalso thevaluesofpoiseand self-control, ofhigh-minded
justiceand scrupulousreverenceforotherpersonalities.
The factis thatthereare certainfundamental instincts
and ideal needs in man and woman which are better
met by the exclusive relation of man and woman,
and by theirpermanentrelation,except under special
circumstances, fairlywell providedforby presentlaws.
Thereis an instinctof jealousy,or at least a sentiment,
in theaveragemanand woman,whichis exclusiveand does
not toleratea divided affection.The storytold by a
settlement workeris truein largepart to humannature.
A womancame into a New York settlement house,and
whilewaitingforan interview attractedthe notice of a
residentpassingthrough theroom. The residentspoketo
one ofthe otherneighbors and said, "What is the matter
withthat womanoverthere? She doesn'tlook happy."
"No," said the neighbor,"she ain't. She's marriedand
has a goodhusband,but he liveswithanotherwomanand
it annoysher." Whenwe add the fundamental need of
the childfortwo parents not merelyforlife'sbeginning,
but forlife'sdevelopment;and finallywhenwe add the
needwhichtheparents,on theirside,have not merelyfor
previsionand careofinfancyand children, but also forthe
friendships and renewing contactswithyouth,we have the
main reasonswhythe ethicalideal of exclusiveand per-
manentunionsis likelyto maintainitself.
But whilethe generalformof thefamilymayremain,it
is necessaryto directemphasisupon its positivevalues,
ratherthanuponthenegative. It is muchmoreimportant
234 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

to insist that the rightparties marry,than to insist that

married persons shall never separate. If we emphasize
negations,let us at least place them wherethey will be of
most use. It is moreimportant,underexistingconditions,
to provide against marriagewhich will communicatedis-
ease, against hasty marriages, against marriages which
can never hope to bring sound, healthy childreninto the
world,than to allow such people to marryindiscriminately
and then inveigh against the evils of divorce. And even
these preventionscan be made effectiveonly by providing
positive agencies, social, economic, educational, for pro-
motingrightmarriages.
So far as childrenare concerned,evidentlythe emphasis
required for the middle class and professionalfamily is
differentfromthat required for the working-classfamily.
The formertend to marrytoo late and to have too few
children-the latter to have too many. The ethical em-
phasis for the formerneeds rather to be placed upon the
largersocial significancewhich the familyhas forcommu-
nity life. Our old negative morality is helpless here.
In placing the familymoralsso largelyupon certainascetic
conceptionsof sex, or in trustingeconomic pressureupon
woman to induce her to marry,the older moralitycould
offerno counteractive to the modern woman's love of
freedom,to the opportunityfor self-support,and to the
modern man's financialambitions or love of ease. City
conditions'complicatethe problem by their tendency to
postpone marriage. The census figuresshow that in the
city out of one hundred between the ages of twentyand
twenty-fourthere are seventy-twosingle and twenty-six
married, as compared with sixty-twosingle and thirty-
six marriedin the country. Between the ages of twenty-
five and twenty-ninewe findin the city forty-foursingle
and fifty-four married,and in the countrythirty-fivesingle
and sixty-twomarried. This postponementis due in part
to greatercost of beginninga home, in part to the desire
on the part of young people to begin in a more ambitious
way, owing to the patternsof expensive living constantly
 THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY. 235
beforethem,and in part it may be to the greaterdifficulty
in makingacquaintance on the part ofthosewho have come
to the city fromotherdistricts,and to the superioroppor-
tunities for comfortin singlelife which the city affords;
yet a furtherfactor in the case of many is the inability
of the middle-agedand oldermembersof the family,under
modern industrialand commercialconditions,to support
themselves,and the consequent burden imposed upon the
youngermembers. All these factorsmake against family
life. They work against the entranceupon familylife at
an age when thereis greaterplasticity;they tend to place
a greaterstrain upon the chastity of young men, and to
unfit them for fidelityin their later marriage relations.
Nor is the effectupon young women less present,though
in differentfashion. The longer marriage is postponed
afterthe normal period of say twenty-oneto twenty-five,
the less inclinationis likelyto existforit, the less the power
of adaptation to its conditions,and, in case of women
employedin many occupations,the less likelyis the physi-
cal conditionsuited to find delightin motherhood.
"Why has Mr. Smith changed his occupation fromrail-
roading to workin a bank when he seemed to be so much
interestedin the former?" asked a lady of one of her
acquaintances who was himselfin the railroadingbusiness.
"I am afraid I am responsiblefor that," was the reply.
"I told him that if he stayed in the railroadingbusiness
he could not marryuntil he was thirty-five. " I remarked
to the lady that this seemed to me to imply a very exag-
gerated standard of what was necessary for marriage.
"Yes," she answered, "it is a pity that young people
should thinkso much of pleasure as to miss happiness."
But it is not merelymissinghappiness. For those who
are sound and clean, strong and vigorous,it is one great
opportunityof service to the futureof their countryand
its ideals. We must think more of the larger issues in-
volved.
Among the working-classfamiliesthe ethical problemis
very different. It is not a demand for greater freedom,
236 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

but forgreaterresponsibility, whichis heard mostoften

in the courtsof domesticrelations. In the experienceof
social workersthe great complaintis that of failureto
supportor of outrightdesertion. In manycases thereis
too stronga correlation betweenrapid birthsand rapid
deaths to be ignored. If, therefore, one is to help the
morals of the working-class family,the raising of the
standardoflivingis evidently themosthopefullineofat-
tack, whetherthis takes the individualformof better
trainingand educationofbothboysand girls,or the form
of public controlof housingand sanitation,of public
insurancefor unemployment, accident,and illness,and
ultimately of a justerdistributionof gains.
Shouldthepoorbe taughtalso directly howto limitthe
numberof children? This is a pointactivelyin dispute
at thepresenttime. American law makessuchinstruction
a criminaloffense.In Englandinformation is available to
marriedpersons. In Francethereis no restriction.Many
writersare strongly opposedas to theethicsoftheproblem.
Forelis as decidedupononesideas Foerster upontheother.
On the one hand,it is urgedthat all the so-calledupper
classeshave knowledge and act uponit, and thatthepres-
ent excessivebirth-rate among the poor keeps themin
poverty,causesill healthof mothers, and increasesinfant
mortality to a shockingdegree. On the otherhand,it is
urgedas strongly thattheproposedremedyis worsethan
thedisease,sinceit proposesto freemenfromthenecessity
of any controlover theirsenses. One point is agreed
upon by both parties,that thereare evils in the present
situation,and that, as the standardof livingrises,the
familytendsto assumea size whichgivesthe best oppor-
tunityforthe healthand care of all concerned. Finally,
as we have noted,the standardoftenrisestoo high,and
the familypasses out of existence. Perhaps the happy
mediumis morelikelyto be securedifwe place ourempha-
sis upon the positivevalues ofhealthand opportunity for
bothmothersand children, ifwe aimprimarily to raisethe
level ofintelligence and consideration.Excessivelylarge
 THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY. 237
familiesare nottheruleafterthefirstor secondgeneration
,ofimmigrants.
Will the new ethicsof the familyfavora more closely
knit economic unit or a greater economicindepend-
ence of the woman? Will the tendencybe for the
woman to entermoreand morethe fieldof production,
or shouldstressratherlie upona betterscientificknowledge
forconsumption. and homework? Shall the public take
over more of the parentalfunctions, as it has already
takenoverso muchofsanitationand education,orshallit,
by paymentsto mothers,emphasizehomevalues? Each
of these alternativesclaims its advocates, but,as Mr.
Rubinowhas so clearlypointedout, the problemof eco-
nomicindependence is not the same forthe middleand
professionalclasswomanas forthe working-class woman.
For the former, economicindependencemeans freedom
to entersomecongenialoccupation. For thelatter,on the
otherhand,it wouldordinarily mean workin factoryor
shop underconditionswhichare likelyto be physically
exhausting and not mentallystimulating.
With the middleclass or professionalfamilythereseems
no reasonwhyall shouldfollowa uniform rule. On this
I ventureto repeatwhat I have writtenbefore:"If both
husband and wifecarryon gainfuloccupations,well; if
one is occupiedoutsidethehomeand anotherwithin,well
also. Whichplan is followedoughtto dependon which
plan is betteron the wholeforall concerned. And this
willdependlargelyon thewoman'sownabilityand tastes
and upon the numberand age of the children. But the
economicrelationis nottheessentialthing. The essential
thingis that the economicbe made subordinateto the
largerconceptionof a commongood."
As regardsthosewomenwho would enterfactoryand
shop, thereare probablyalreadytoo manyratherthan
too fewemployed. Legislationwhichdecreasesthe num-
ber of hoursis important, so faras it goes,but I cannot
believethat,forthegreatmajorityof women,suchoutside
workis eithernecessaryor desirablefromthe point of
238 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

view of theirown lives or the welfareof the family. There,

is usually no great objection on the part of the husband
in working-classfamiliesto the extra wage, although not
all husbands take such a high stand as the husband of my
neighbor'slaundress. He declareshis principleto be that
he will not live with any woman who does not support
him. This might be regarded as standing so erect as to
lean backward.
The great point on which more positive ethics for the
working-classfamily should center, I repeat, is a higher
standard of living,a higherwage and betterhouse, better
opportunitiesfor play, and longer and better education
for the children. The strikingtestimonyof Henry Ford
as to his experiencemay not warrantus in any sweeping
optimismthat a minimumwage of fivedollars a day would
be a key to everyformoffamilydifficulty.It is doubtless
true, as claimed, that prostitutionmay not be in large
measure the simple consequence of direct economic pres-
sure upon the woman worker. None the less it is true
that prostitutesare not recruitedin any large proportion
from the well-to-door the well-educated classes. Chil-
dren who grow up in a comfortablehome with intelligent
parents have a multitude of fences and supports about
them to steady them through the troublous years from
childhood into manhood and womanhood. The lack of
privacy, decency,comfort,and of resourcesin which great
multitudesof our citychildrenare now broughtup is a far
strongermenace to familylifethan any ethical-or uneth-
ical-theory or any frequencyof divorce, and when we
have remedied some of these conditions, we can speak
more confidently as to the next thing.
On the question of public care versus home provisionit
may seem that the tendency is decisive. The nurse is
better trained than the average mother; the teacher is
far betterinformedthan eitherparent. Industryremoves
the fatherfromthe home; in well-to-dofamiliesit takes
active occupations away from the wife, and in poorer
familiesforcesthe motherinto outside occupations;if,now,
 THE ETHICS OF THE FAMILY. 239
in addition science deals the last blow by saying that chil-
dren can be better provided for collectively,are we not
putting our money on the wrong horse if we back the
family?
For one, I am not in love withthe alternative. I do not
see in our modern hours of industry,our preposterous
flats and city crowding,the ultimate goal of civilization.
I do not think childrencan dispense with parents. Still
less do I thinkparentscan affordto lose the responsibility,
the direct education, and the joy of association with
children.
In a word,to quote Ellen Key once more,"It is not the
family that ought to be abolished, but the rights of the
family that must be reformed;not education by parents
that ought to be avoided, but education of parents that
must be introduced;not the home that ought to be done
away with, but homelessnessthat must cease." 2
If our presentindustrialtrendwere inevitable and irre-
mediable, I doubt if it would be worthwhile to discuss the
ethics of the family. But this Conferencedoes not easily
admit bad conditionsto be inevitable. It has attacked
child labor. It has seen the beginningof aid to mothers
in keeping theirfamiliestogether. It has seen the hours
of many kinds of labor reduced to permithome life. City
housingmay seem so tremendousan obstacle that it cannot
be overcome,but though I do not expect to see cities of
homes replace cities of flats,there may be some of our
number who will. Eugenics is likely to make mistakes,
but it shows signs of promise. Great employersof labor
do not all, like the officialof the steel corporation,
regard it as "a purely academic question" whether a
twelve-hourday permits family and civic life.3 Higher
education will perhaps not always insist upon identical
curricula for men and women. Democracy in national
lifesteadies as it growsolder. So will democracyin family
2 Elen Key, Love and Marriage,p. 240.
3 Iron Age,February22, 1912,p. 482.
240 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS.

life. The ethics of the familymay, therefore, framea

positiveprogramof freerdiscussionand education. It
maysetas itsidealhigherstandardsoffitness formarriage,
of equality,fidelity,
and affectionin marriage,and of joy
in children. It may magnify not onlythe missionof the
soulto refinethesense,but thatofthesenseto givepower
and enhancementto the soul. And finallyit will not
need to adopt Plato's gradesof value withtheirimplied
depreciationof familyrelations. All men, says Plato,
crave immortality.Some seek forimmortality through
the offspringof theirbodies; othersare creativein their
mindsand theiroffspring is the nobler. Ratherwe may
say the noblerideal formenand womenis to be creative
in both mindand body. Certainlythe familywill not
thriveby denyingeithermind or. body,but by uniting
the two.
JAMES HAYDEN TUFTS.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.