The Cities of the Plain may, for all we know to the contrary, have been in excellent social health; indeed, there is every reason to believe they were.

They were, apparently, to a high degree strong and prosperous; and the sort of happiness that their citizens set most store by was only too generally attainable.

There were not ten men to be found in them by whom the _highest good_ had not been realised.
There are, however, two suppositions, on which the general good, or the health of the social organism, can be given a more definite meaning, and made in some sense an adequate test of conduct.

And one or other of these suppositions is apparently always lurking in the positivist mind.
But though, when unexpressed, and only barely assented to, they may seem to be true, their entire falsehood will appear the moment they are distinctly stated.
One of these suppositions is, that for human happiness health is alone requisite--health in the social organism including sufficient wealth and freedom; and that man's life, whenever it is not interfered with, will be moral, dignified, and delightful naturally, no matter how he lives it.

But this supposition, from a moralist, is of course nonsense.