That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Class 12 Exam > Class 12 Questions > That the doctrines connected with the name of...

Join the Discussion on the App

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Q. It is implied in the passage that

a)
a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.
b)
what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.
c)
Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.
d)
fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Languages: Mock Test - 1

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering o...

The author advocates a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. Read the penultimate line of paragraph 2, "…a correction of our moral views and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal...." This makes option (b) correct.

Free Test

FREE

Languages: Mock Test - 1
40 Ques | 45 Min

Start Free Test

View all free Class 12 tests

Community Answer

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering o...

Explanation of Option B
The passage discusses the potential impact of Darwinism on ethical principles, particularly in relation to the Christian moral code and the possibility of reverting to Hellenic ideals. Here’s a breakdown of why option B is the correct answer:
Darwinism's Role in Moral Transformation
- The author suggests that Darwinism may not change the concept of the Chief Good (the welfare of the community) but can influence our understanding of the means to achieve it.
- This influence might lead to a re-evaluation of moral principles, potentially steering society away from Christian ideals toward a Hellenic perspective.
Contrast Between Ideals
- The passage implies that while the Christian moral code is partly accepted, it is often rejected or misunderstood by many, leading to confusion in moral reasoning.
- Hellenic ideals, which are associated with a more rational and possibly secular approach to ethics, are presented as a potential alternative that can clarify moral principles.
Implication of a Need for Hellenic Ideals
- By stating that Darwinism could lead to a "return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal," the author emphasizes the idea that modern ethics might benefit from these ancient principles.
- This suggests that what mankind needs is indeed a Hellenic ideal, which can provide a more coherent moral framework compared to the fragmented acceptance of Christian ethics.
In summary, option B posits that the evolution of ethical thought, influenced by Darwinism, favors a shift towards Hellenic ideals as a necessary alternative to the complexities of the Christian moral framework.

Share via Whatsapp

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for Class 12 exam

Similar Class 12 Doubts

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. What is most probably the authors opinion of the existing moral principles of the people?

View answer

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of jarring elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Punishment.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. What, according to the passage, is the Chief Good?

View answer

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of jarring elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Punishment.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. According to the author, the moral code of Christianity

View answer

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of jarring elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Punishment.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. According to the author, the doctrines of Mr Darwin

View answer

Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod and Maclyn McCarty used enzymes to purify biochemicals such as proteins, DNA and RNA from the heat-killed S cells to see which ones could transform live R cells into S cells in Griffiths experiment. They observed that

View answer

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 12 2024 is part of Class 12 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 12 exam syllabus. Information about That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 12 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 12. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 12 Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.Q. It is implied in the passage thata)a Hellenic ideal is not a proper substitute of the Christian ideal.b)what mankind needs is a Hellenic ideal rather than a Christian one.c)Darwinism is more Christian than Hellenic.d)fanatics do not understand what Darwinism really is.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.

Explore Courses for Class 12 exam