"So much the worse, it may be, for a particular meeting: but the meeting is the individual, which on evolution principles, must be sacrificed for the development of the race"
About this Quote
Cold comfort, delivered with the clean, almost bloodless confidence of a Victorian intellectual. Cayley is talking about a "particular meeting" as if it were a disposable datum point, then flips it into something larger: the meeting is the individual. That rhetorical move matters. It drains the scene of sentiment and replaces it with a model. In a mathematician's hands, the human scale becomes a unit in a system, and the system's output - "development of the race" - becomes the governing objective.
The intent is to justify loss by appealing to an impersonal logic. Cayley borrows the prestige of evolutionary thinking (still fresh, still intoxicating in the late 19th century) to frame sacrifice not as tragedy but as mechanism. "On evolution principles" functions like a proof tag: granted these axioms, the conclusion follows. The phrase also gives him cover. It's not Cayley choosing to discard the individual; it's Nature, or History, or Progress, doing the discarding.
The subtext is the era's confidence in aggregates: populations over persons, improvement over continuity, efficiency over attachment. There's an almost bureaucratic chill to "must be sacrificed" - necessity posed as virtue. Read now, it lands uncomfortably close to the rhetoric that later let institutions rationalize harm in the name of advancement: public health, empire, eugenics, industrial "progress". Cayley's brilliance is the very problem here: he turns a moral question into a structural one, and the structure wins by default.
The intent is to justify loss by appealing to an impersonal logic. Cayley borrows the prestige of evolutionary thinking (still fresh, still intoxicating in the late 19th century) to frame sacrifice not as tragedy but as mechanism. "On evolution principles" functions like a proof tag: granted these axioms, the conclusion follows. The phrase also gives him cover. It's not Cayley choosing to discard the individual; it's Nature, or History, or Progress, doing the discarding.
The subtext is the era's confidence in aggregates: populations over persons, improvement over continuity, efficiency over attachment. There's an almost bureaucratic chill to "must be sacrificed" - necessity posed as virtue. Read now, it lands uncomfortably close to the rhetoric that later let institutions rationalize harm in the name of advancement: public health, empire, eugenics, industrial "progress". Cayley's brilliance is the very problem here: he turns a moral question into a structural one, and the structure wins by default.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Arthur
Add to List




