An Essay on the Principle of Population

This chapter tackles the issue of controlling birth rate, which Godwin theorized would happen in his perfectible society through the substitution of carnal pleasures for intellectual pursuits. Malthus is deeply unsettled by this notion and argues that there has never been an observable extinction of the “passion between the sexes” in history (66). In other words, birth rate cannot be controlled by abstinence from sexual intercourse and intellectual pleasures are only superior to carnal pleasures because they last longer, have a larger range, and are less prone to being satiated. Carnal pleasures, Malthus insists, are equally essential, and overindulgence in anything, including intellectual pursuits, can become so taxing it defeats its own purpose. Virtuous love and friendship between man and wife can result in both intellectual and sensual enjoyment; it is neither condemned by Godwin nor God. Thus, by every logic, it cannot be evidenced that men and women might cease to engage in intercourse in the foreseeable future.

Malthus agrees with Godwin that reason is the proper guide in all actions. It regulates intellectual thought and prevents the abuse of sensual pleasures. However, Malthus does not believe that this is an indication that the passion between men and women will be extinguished. On the contrary, if intellectual exertions affect birth rate at all, then mankind must be “improved more highly than the brightest ornaments of the species at present before any difference can take place” (68). In other words, Malthus believes that the superior power of population growth over food production will perpetually keep the lower classes from having the time to pursue a higher degree of intellectual improvement. This, in turn, will ensure the inevitable growth of population for as long as there is enough subsistence.

Chapter 12 turns the critique toward Godwin’s theory of immortality. According to the philosopher, immortality is linked to the idea that the power of the mind is infinitely more perfectible and influential than the body. For example, walking a short distance without conviction can result in tiredness, whereas covering that same distance with a spirit of motivation can make the body feel invigorated. Malthus agrees these examples illustrate how emotions can affect the body, yet he does not believe the mind can indefinitely fuel the body. The motivated man may yet cover some more distance if his spirit is reinvigorated, yet his muscles cannot sustain this forever. Assuming a small, partial effect may equally be true in a great, general effect is thus fallacious.

Malthus does believe mind and body to be intrinsically linked. However, contrary to Godwin, he argues the body might affect the mind more than the other way around. This is because, should there be a medicine to immortalize the body, it is clear the mind will be equally preserved. However, if only the mind is immortalized, it does not follow that the body will remain intact. Malthus further disagrees with the idea that philosophical thoughts should include speculation on the limits of the human mind. He asserts that philosophical observations must be founded and never arise from empty conjecture. While it is true some recent discoveries are completely unforeseen, a person who successfully predicts this should don the title of prophet, not philosopher.

In sum, the idea that mental improvement might indefinitely extend human life is unrealistic, as there has so far been no evidence of this happening. Malthus rather speculates that Godwin and Condorcet have a personal longing for the prolongation of life, which compelled them to write about it against their better judgment. Regardless of their motives, Malthus finds the restoration of the spirit from a preserved human body infinitely more probable than the concept of immortality on earth. He concludes that while these conjectures might seem redundant and obviously improbable, they deserve a detailed investigation because they were written by respected men of the field.

In Chapter 13 Malthus criticizes Godwin for placing so much importance on rationality that his reasoning is not applicable to the average man. Malthus allows that all actions are preceded by a mental decision, but it does not follow that all men can control their corporal urges that act as disturbing forces. When Godwin urges the abolishment of cruel forms of punishment, Malthus retorts that their severity has an impact on deterring crime: Italy saw a rise in crime because murderers kept in a sanctuary were allowed to frequently escape. It is impossible to know a person’s motive for committing a crime, therefore no laws can accurately proportion their punishment according to the offense done. Despite these injustices, punitive laws remain necessary to control crime and prevent greater evils. Malthus comments it is always easier to criticize institutions than to propose adequate solutions.

In sum, the frequency of crimes committed by men, who should “know better,” proves the mind is not wholly rational and does not always affect conduct (82). Similarly, intellectual pursuits might be enjoyable to some, but this is not universal. Malthus declares a preference for them but does not deny that an evening spent with others invigorates his spirits and fuels his existence. Physical pleasures can thus, at times, energize someone much better than the most worthwhile of intellectual pursuits.

This chapter explores the validity of another of Godwin’s statements. In his essay on political justice, he asserts that “the vices and moral weakness of man are not invincible” (84). Malthus has previously shown his disbelief in the infinite perfectibility of humankind and now seeks to prove why some vices and moral weaknesses can never be overcome. He points out that Godwin’s theory relies on the joint beliefs that injustice is created by political institutions and that men grow according to the experiences they are subjected to. Thus, better social conditions and a higher quality education will eliminate all temptations to do evil. Malthus finds this unbelievable, given the uniqueness of each individual. Reducing human nature to the impressions they received since their conception is fallacious. Further, if the temptation to do evil is great, history has demonstrated that even the most virtuous people cannot succeed in influencing their actions.

Godwin also believes that humans are susceptible to continuous improvement. This proposition is believable insomuch as mankind has always sought progress. However, Malthus cautions that this does not mean the pace of progress is rapid, that it can be controlled, or that perfection can one day be attained. Improvement is not unlimited; rather, its limits cannot be ascertained. This is why the size of carnations can be improved through selective breeding, but there is no hope of them ever growing as large as cabbages. In other words, Godwin’s perfectly equal society is impossible to implement in practice. Malthus concludes that while he expects the lower classes of Europe may one day be better educated, live under more equal conditions, and marry early, he doubts they will ever enjoy leisure or a life free of financial anxieties.

Chapter 15 criticizes a later work of Godwin’s entitled The Enquirer (1797), in which he argues that people should strive to mimic perfect models even if there is no hope of achieving perfection. Malthus finds this unhelpful if the model is too far out of reach: a beginner painter learns nothing from gazing at the work of masters and may be instead discouraged from progress. More generally, Malthus wonders whether the sketching of a perfect society will compel people to strive toward it.

Economist Adam Smith observes that a nation grows rich by parsimony rather than by profusion. This is because the frugal man will reinvest his profit in productive sectors whereas the spendthrift is wasteful of resources. Malthus readily agrees with this assessment and therefore finds Godwin’s perfect society of plentiful resources wasteful and unproductive. Without rightfully allocating labor, his system will soon be divided into a working class and a proprietor class. Misery will plague the lower working class and selfishness will be valued above benevolence. The societal devaluation of labor as an unnecessity will hardly help these workers, who have no other marketable skill. While Malthus agrees the present system is far from perfect, he doubts governments may actively repress the inequalities that have existed since the beginning of time.

There are several ways to alleviate the burdens of the poor. One is to give them money without expecting anything in return, another is to take on some of their labor. However, Malthus cautions that the higher class is far less numerous than the lower classes, and neither of these options will fully solve the problem. Even if labor could be fairly redistributed, he fails to think of a practical and fair method to facilitate such drastic changes. Malthus points that Godwin provides no such guidance. In sum, the principle of population will always result in scarcity. Even if the rich man could provide for three, at least four will be desirous of it.

Malthus believes hard labor is necessarily evil, yet it is still better than being dependent. In other words, while industry workers may live and work in difficult conditions, it is less debasing than their previous state of servitude. Malthus assures his theory does not undermine the virtues of benevolence. Rather, he is only observing miseries that inevitably arise from the superior power of population growth. This is not grounds upon which the working class should target the higher class. If employers are shamed into thinking they add to the weight of their workers’ oppression, they may be disinclined to spend their income, and this type of saving is unproductive. Not encouraging the reinvestment of profits will ultimately be detrimental to society and to the lower classes.

Malthus allows that current working conditions force some to labor more than is strictly necessary and some restrictions can be put in place. However, he cannot conceive that those in desperate need of money would want to adhere to them. Thus, unless Godwin formulates a plan to equitably distribute labor according to everyone’s needs, it is far less evil to leave the situation as it is. Malthus proposes a solution of his own: improving lands that can be used for agricultural labor. Based on the belief that labor is better used producing necessities rather than luxuries, a greater production of food will necessarily relieve the desolate conditions of the lower classes. This is because manufacturing luxuries only artificially increases the demand for laborers. It does not improve their living conditions, given food production remains the same. Even though wages may increase, and jobs are easier to find, inflation keeps the lower class’s purchasing power constant. According to Malthus, only a quantitative increase in food production may relieve the conditions of the lower classes.