such intense interest. In this case his appreciation of the importance of an income to that other person will be represented by Diagram B.

In Diagram B we will measure the income of the other person, whom we shall call B, along the line OX, and A's appreciation of B's income along the line OY. If B's income is very small, measured, let us say, by the line OE, A will desire to see that income increased. The intensity of that desire of A is measured, let us say, by the line DE. If now A's income is measured in Diagram A by the line OE", he will be willing to give up a part of his own income in order to add to B's income. The line DE in Diagram B is longer than the line D"E" in Diagram A.

This kind of giving is quite consistent with the fact that A cares a great deal more for himself than he does for B. The relative height of the two curves YDD'D' in Diagram A and YDD' in Diagram B indicates the degree of preference for himself. Under the conditions represented in the two diagrams, A will by no means divide evenly with B. That is to say, he will not cut his own income down from an amount measured by OE" to an amount measured by OE' in Diagram A in order to increase B's income to an amount measured by OE' in Diagram B. That would give them equal incomes; but A's enjoyment of the last dollar of B's enlarged income would be measured by the line D'E' in Diagram B, while if he had kept that dollar for himself, his enjoyment of it would have been measured by the line DE in Diagram A.

Interest in others who are not so near to self. When it comes to some other person, whom we shall call C, who is so distantly removed from A in space or in kinship that A takes very little interest in him, we may find that A's interest is represented by the curve YD in Diagram C. Applying the same comparisons between Diagrams A and C that were made between Diagrams A and B, we shall find that A might give up a dollar to keep C from starvation, if C's condition were presented to

him pretty strongly, but that is about as far as A will go in relieving C's distress.

Under the conditions that we have described, A would pass as a very benevolent man. If he were what is ordinarily regarded as a selfish man, the curves YDD' in Diagram B and YD in Diagram C would merely be somewhat lower than we have drawn them, or the curve YDD'D" in Diagram A would be higher than we have drawn it.

Nearness in kinship. Even though a generous man will care a great deal for the interests of a great many people, nevertheless he is somewhat self-centered in his appreciation of or interest in others. He will care more for some people than for others, —more, for example, for his own wife and children than for other men's wives and children, more for his own relatives than for other people's relatives, more for his own neighbors than for other people's neighbors, more for his own fellow citizens than for the citizens of other countries. Those for whom he cares most, or whose interests he feels most keenly, are those who are in some way closely associated with himself. They are near to him, if we may be permitted to use the word "near" in several senses besides the geometrical or geographical sense. They may be near to him in point of kinship. Thus, other things equal, he will be more generous toward his near of kin than toward those who are distantly related to him, toward human beings than toward animals, and toward the higher than toward the lower animals. Again, mere geometrical nearness counts as a factor. A man who is suffering at his door or in his immediate neighborhood will move him more than a man who is suffering equally but who is a long way off. This may sometimes be a stronger factor than nearness of kinship. That is, a near neighbor who needs help will appeal more powerfully to his sympathy than a near relative who lives a long way off. He may even do more for an animal with whom he is closely associated, such as a favorite horse, dog, or cat, than for some human being who is far away. Space is almost as important a factor as kinship in limiting his interests.

Nearness in time as well as in space. Time also is a factor. Our generous man is more interested in his immediate children than in his distant descendants, more in his contemporary fellow citizens than in future generations. He is more interested even in his own present wants than in his future wants.1

S

Y

There are other senses than space, kinship, and time in which the word "near" can be used. There are those who are near in the sense of like-mindedness. They who think and feel on most important questions as he thinks and feels may be said to be near him in a very important sense. He is pretty certain to care more for them, other things equal, than for those who think and feel differently. This may sometimes prove so strong

G

S'

G'

-X

a tie as to cause him

to desert not only his neighbors and fellow citizens but even his family in order to take sides with those who think and feel as he does.

In short, a man's interest in others is limited by the factor of distance in space, time, or kinship, and in unlikeness, either physical, moral, or mental. The greater the distance which separates them from him in any or all of these respects, the less his interest in them tends to become; while the nearer they are to him in any or all of these respects, the more intense his interest in them tends to become. He is thus self-centered in his appreciation of the interest of others even when he is broadly generous. When he is narrowly selfish he is more narrowly self-centered.

Self-centered appreciation. This principle of self-centered appreciation may be illustrated by the diagram above. Let us

1 Cf. Chapter XXXVIII, on The Desirability of Capital and its Relation to Interest.

assume that the individual's appreciation of the interest of various persons, including himself, is measured along the line OY. Then let us assume that he himself stands at the point 0, while others are ranged along the line OX in the order of their nearness to himself in some of the senses in which we have used the word "nearness." Let us take kinship, for example. Those nearest of kin would stand on the line OX nearest the point O, and those most distantly related near the opposite end, or the point X. We will now let the curve SS' represent the selfish man's appreciation of the interests of various persons. The line OS measures his appreciation of his own interest, or his interest in himself. His appreciation of the interests of another person is measured by the perpendicular distance from the point on the line OX where that person stands to a point on the line SS'. Thus his appreciation of the interests of his immediate family may be almost as high as his appreciation of his own interest. But he cares so little for other people, and those for whom he cares even a little are so few in number, that the curve SS' falls very rapidly. Distant relatives who stand beyond the point S' on the line OX do not concern him in the slightest degree. He has no appreciation at all of their interests.

In the case of G, who is a generous man, the curve is different. It is represented by the curve GG'. Following the same explanation as was given of the curve SS', we find that the curve GG' represents him as caring a little more for a very few persons than for himself. Then his interest in others begins to decline the farther they are from himself, until, when we find some who are so far removed as to stand beyond the point G' on the line OX, his interest in them disappears altogether.

It is human to show preferences. Any being who did not show such preferences as these would scarcely be human. He who would not sacrifice a trifle even to save the life of his nearest of kin or his nearest neighbor would not be a man but a devil. Again, he who would not show more interest in his near of kin than in his distant of kin, in his near neighbors than in his distant neighbors, in his fellow citizens than in the

citizens of other countries, in kindly disposed men than in evilminded men, in men than in animals, or in the higher than in the lower animals, would not be much better than a devil. If, in a struggle between a man and a tiger or a man and a disease germ, he did not show some disposition to favor the man, or if in the struggle between a good man and a criminal he did not show a preference for the good man, we should probably call him by some pretty hard names. Zeus alone among the gods has been represented to us as showing no preference for either the Greeks or the Trojans in their memorable struggle. All the lesser gods showed preferences and took sides, but he maintained an attitude of supreme indifference to the petty quarrels of mortal men. If you will try to appraise his morals you may find some difficulty in deciding whether they were godlike or devilish. They certainly were not human.

Does it work well to be self-centered? We come now to the second of the questions stated earlier in this chapter. Does it work well or badly for the individual to show self-interest or to be self-centered in his appreciation of human interests? No one is likely to deny that he should show a preference for human beings as compared with other creatures. We hear a few vague suggestions now and then to the effect that each one should be a friend to man and that he should not show preference for special groups or classes of men. Aside from the vagueness of the idea of friendship to man there are one or two difficulties. Suppose you found a person who was not a friend but an enemy to man, should you befriend him or not? If you befriend an enemy of man are you yourself a very good friend to man? In order to befriend man must you not be an enemy to the enemies of man? If so, you must discriminate and show a preference for the friends of man as against the enemies of man. In other words, you must divide men into at least two classes, namely, the friends and the enemies of man, and show more regard for and interest in one class than in the other. In the case of the average individual these classes resolve themselves into those whom he approves,

1