[1258] “The fact that such a thing as natural solidarity exists should not be taken to imply that it must necessarily be just. Justice can never be realised unless the laws of solidarity are first observed; but once these have been established, their effects must be modified to make them conform to the requirements of justice. The actual and the ideal should never be confused; they are the direct contraries of one another. But it is absolutely necessary that the first should be established before we can realise the moral necessity for the other.” (Bourgeois, Philosophie de la Solidarité, pp. 13, 17.)
[1259] “There are some debts which are hardly noticed at all, but which ought to be paid all the same.” (Bourgeois, Philosophie de la Solidarité, p. 60.) “There is a real claim where we thought there was only a moral obligation, and a debt where we thought there was only a sacrifice.” As the Gospel says: “Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” (Luke xii, 48.) “So that ye come behind in no gift.” (1 Corinthians i, 7.)
[1260] “No man is free as long as he is in debt. He becomes free the moment he pays off that debt. The doctrine of solidarity is just the corrective of the theories of private property and individual liberty.” (Bourgeois, op. cit., p. 45.)
[1261] M. Bourgeois also points out that just as our ancestors were indebted to us, so are we indebted to those that shall come after us. But that is a different thing, and the theory does not seem very sound on this point. It is strange to think that creditors long since dead should transfer the debt which was owing to them to the credit of generations yet unborn!
[1262] Bourgeois, op. cit., p. 94.
[1263] Even the texts of the Civil Code seem to point to some such theory. Article 1370, in addition to the cases of quasi-contract and quasi-misdemeanour of which it speaks, also mentions “law” as a general cause of obligation.
[1264] “Wherever it is impossible to fix definitely the value of the personal effort put forth by a single individual, as in the case of a quasi-contract—that is, whenever it is impossible to determine the value of the debt on the one hand or the credit on the other—the best plan is to pool those risks and advantages. This would mean that none would know who is really bearing the risk or who is reaping the advantages, the risks being shared by everybody and the advantages being thrown open to everyone.” (Ibid., p. 81.)
The end of the quotation apparently contradicts the statement we have italicised, in which he speaks of pooling risks and advantages. With regard to the latter, it is enough, apparently, to secure equal opportunity. It is not very obvious why the principle should be so rigidly enforced in the one case and so reluctantly in the other. If the principle of solidarity holds me responsible for the degradation of the drunkard in the one case, is there any reason why I should not be allowed to share in the good fortune of the lucky speculator in another? Is it because the logical application of this principle would directly lead to communism?
[1265] One should add that the word “quasi-contract” is not so frequently used by M. Bourgeois as it is by his disciples. As in many another instance, the disciples have outdone the master. In his Philosophie de la Solidarité he scarcely uses the term at all, but seems to prefer to speak of mutualisation.
[1266] Such seems to be the ideal of Guyau, the philosopher, in his charming volume, Esquisse d’une Morale sans Obligation ni Sanction.