morality which, if crude, was in some respects stricter
than that of today. It is a mistake to think of the savage as Rousseau
imagined him, a freehearted, happy-go-lucky individualist, only by a
cramping civilization bowed under the yoke of laws and conventions.
Savage life is essentially group-life; the individual is nothing, the tribe
everything. The gods are tribal gods, warfare is tribal warfare, hunting,
sowing, harvesting, are carried on by the community as a whole. There
are few personal possessions, there is little personal will; obedience to
the tribal customs, and mutual cooperation, are universal. [Footnote: As
an example of the solidarity of barbarous tribes, note how Abimelech,
seeking election as king, says to "all the men of Shechem": "Remember
that I am your bone and your flesh." (Judges IX, 2.) Later, "all the
tribes of Israel" say to David, "Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh."
(2 Sam. V, 1.) Of savage life as observed in modern times we have
many reports like this: "Many strange customs and laws obtain in
Zululand, but there is no moral code in all the world more rigidly
observed than that of the Zulus." (R. H. Millward, quoted by Myers,
History as Past Ethics, p. 11.) Compare this: "A Kafir feels that the
'frame that binds him in' extends to the clan. The sense of solidarity of
the family in Europe is thin and feeble compared to the full-blooded
sense of corporate union of the Kafir clan. The claims of the clan
entirely swamp the rights of the individual." (Kidd, Savage Childhood,
p. 74.) An elaborate and stern social morality, then, long preceded
verbally formulated laws; it was a matter of instinct and emotion long
before it was a matter of calculation or conscience. The most primitive
men acknowledge a duty to their neighbors; and the subsequent
advance of social morality has consisted simply in more and more
comprehensive answers to the questions, What is my duty? and Who is
my neighbor? At first, the neighbor was the fellow tribesman only, all
outsiders being deemed fair prey. Every member of the clan
instinctively arose to avenge an injury to any other member, and
rejoiced in triumphs over their common foes. We still have survivals of
this primitive code in the Corsican vendettas and Kentucky feuds. With
the growth of nations, the cooperative spirit came to embrace wider and
wider circles; but even as yet there is little of it in international
relations. The old double standard of morality persists in spite of the
command to which we give theoretic allegiance-"Ye have heard that it
hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But
I say unto you, Love your enemies!" From the same lips came the final
answer to the question, "Who is my neighbour?" It can be found in the
tenth chapter of the Gospel according to Luke. By what means was
social morality produced?
(1) The earliest source of social morality lies in the maternal instinct;
the first animal that took care of its young stood at the beginning of this
wonderful advance. The originating causes of the first slight care of
eggs or offspring lay, no doubt, in some obscure physiological
readjustments, due to forces irrelevant to morality. But the young that
had even such slight care had a survival advantage over their rivals, and
would transmit the rudimentary instinct to their offspring. Thus, given a
start in that direction, natural selection, steadily favoring the more
maternally disposed, produced species with a highly developed and
long continuing maternal love. In similar manner but in lesser degree a
paternal instinct was developed. The existence of these instincts
implied the power of sympathy and altruistic action that is, action by
one individual for another's welfare. From sympathy for offspring to
sympathy for mate and other members of the group was but a step; and
all sympathetic action may have its ultimate source in mother love.
(2) Not only was natural selection early at work in the rivalry for
existence between individuals, protecting those stocks that had the
stronger maternal and paternal instincts, but it played an important part
in the struggle between groups. Those species that developed the ability
to keep together for mutual protection or for advantage. And within a
species those particular herds or flocks or tribes that cooperated best
outlived the others. With the strongest animals, such as lions and tigers,
and with the weakest, such as rabbits and mice, the instinct to stand by
one another is of no value and so was never fostered by natural
selection. But in many species of animals of intermediate strength, that
by cooperation might be able to resist attack or overcome enemies that
they would singly be impotent against, the cooperative instinct became
strongly developed. Notably in
Continue reading on your phone by scaning this QR Code
Tip: The current page has been bookmarked automatically. If you wish to continue reading later, just open the
Dertz Homepage, and click on the 'continue reading' link at the bottom of the page.