Page images
PDF
EPUB

ments of facts, or by an incorrect combination of facts. This simple statement, if properly applied, can hardly fail to explain numerous mistaken moral judgments which have been adduced in opposition to the doctrine of conscience. When, among other things, it is said, that the conscience of the heathen decides, on many points of a moral and religious nature, differently from that of a Christian people, it must be recollected that the latter, through the medium of the Scriptures, have a vast amount of moral and religious knowledge which the heathen have not.

The objector to the doctrine of an original moral nature alleges, for instance, in support of his views, that the inhabitants of some countries, as is alleged to be the case in some parts of India, worship the sun, and that they appear to be conscientious in it; while the inhabitants of other countries, particularly those where the Christian religion prevails, condemn such worship as morally wrong. But if the worshippers of the sun, in the destitution of those sources of information which other nations possess, are fully convinced that the orb of day is not only the source of light, as it obviously is, but the source of being also; that it not only has in itself the principle of vivification, but is also the quickening and vivifying spirit to all things that exist, it is no evidence against the existence of a Moral Nature that they stand, in the view of their own conscience, morally approved in the matter of the worship which they render. The result, so far as the action of the conscience is concerned, is what might reasonably be expected. The difficulty is not in the operations of the conscience, but in the antecedent operations of the intellect, which, either from a want of facts or a false application of facts, have ascribed the attributes of Deity to a mere mass of matter. If the people referred to possessed the same amount of knowledge in relation to moral and religious subjects which Christian nations generally possess, the probability certainly is, that there would be no diversity in their moral judgments.It will be noticed, we do not say that the worshippers of the sun are to be regarded as guiltless in the course which they take. What we assert here has reference merely to

the matter under consideration; and merely goes to show that the conscience, in deciding in accordance with the facts before it, conforms to the principles of its own nature, and that the seat or ground of the error, whatever the amount of that error may be, lays somewhere else than in the action of the moral sensibilities.

268. Of diversities in moral judgment in connexion with differences in civil and political institutions.

We may reasonably expect, in the third place, to find diversities and occasional oppositions of moral judgment in connexion with differences of civil and political institutions. This statement might be illustrated by numerous instances from history. The objectors to a moral nature maintain that theft, or the unlawfully taking of the property of another, is a crime; and that conscience, if it exists as a part of the mental constitution, will not fail to condemn it universally. And, in connexion with this, they bring forward the fact, that in some countries, theft, instead of being condemned as it should be, prevails very much, and is scarcely regarded as a crime. They state, among other things that are brought forward in support of their views, that theft was not only permitted, but approved and rewarded by the laws of Sparta.

The fact that we may reasonably expect to find diversities of moral judgment in connexion with differences of civil and political institutions, throws light upon the case last mentioned. The Spartans, it is well known, were trained up by their political institutions to regard property as of little value; their lands were equally divided; they ate at public tables; and the great end of all their civil regulations was to render the citizens athletic, active, patient, and brave. Everything else was considered subordinate. The permission which was given to the Spartan lads to steal was a part of the public regulations. It was a sort of tax, which the citizens voluntarily imposed upon themselves, in order to encourage vigilance, endurance, and address in the younger part of the community; and hence, when they were detected immediately after the theft, they were severely punished for deficiency of skill. Accordingly, the theft, which was perVOL. II.-D D

mitted and approved by the Spartans, was a very different thing from what goes under that name with us. The mere act may have been the same, but there was no correspondence in the results and attendant circumstances, and in the degree of evil intention. Similar inquiries in other instances will go far in explaining many apparent deviations from the permanent distinctions between vice and virtue, and will reduce the number of cases of supposed want of uniformity in moral sentiments.

§ 269. Additional illustration of the same view of the subject. Under this head we may properly notice, in particular, the statement made by travellers, that some Savage tribes are very much given to theft. Captain Cook informs us, that, when he visited the Sandwich Islands in 1778, the inhabitants exhibited a thievish disposition, taking everything which came within their reach. In explanation of this statement, it is to be remarked, first, that the idea of theft involves the idea of property; and that the right of property is more or less strict and absolute in different countries and under different political systems. In consequence of the richness of their soil and the favourable nature of their climate, there is no question that the right of property was held by the Sandwich Islanders to be less strict and exclusive than it is found to be in less productive countries. The familiar distinction of MEUM and TUUM, of our own and another's, was not so clearly drawn and so strenuously adhered to as it generally is in civilized nations; and the probability is, that nearly all the various forms of property were held in common. As the right of property was in their estimation less strict, the violation of it was less criminal; and they did not look upon the offender with that decided disapprobation which in other places would attach to him in taking the same articles. They probably regarded him with nearly the same feelings with which we regard a man who, in passing through an orchard that belongs to us, takes a few apples, or who occasionally draws water from our well. He takes our property, it is true; but as the right of erty in those cases is held, by common consent, to be a loose or mitigated one, we do not call it theft, nor regard it as criminal.

prop

And further, in looking at Captain Cook's account a little more minutely, we see evidence in the narration itself of the correctness of this view. "At first," he says, "on entering the ship, they endeavoured to steal everything they came near, or, rather, to take it openly, as what we either should not resent or not hinder." In another place he says, in explanation of their conduct, "they thought they had a right to everything they could lay their hands on." We learn also, that, after they were made to understand the English notions of property and the penalty attached to a violation of it, they soon laid aside such conduct. It is obvious, if they had attached the same ideas to taking property which we attach to stealing, they would not have taken it openly, as much so as if they supposed they either had a right to it, or that the owners would not resent or hinder their taking it.

-

◊ 270. This view of the subject further illustrated from cases of assagsination.

It would be easy to introduce other illustrations, which would seem properly to come under this head. For instance, there is no crime in respect to the enormity of which the opinion of mankind is more decided and unanimous than that of assassination. But the objector to the doctrine of an original moral sense assures us, that about two centuries ago assassinations were frequent in Scotland, and that they appeared to be committed without any symptoms of compunction. A state of things which is sometimes alleged to be inconsistent with an implanted and universal moral nature.

As to the fact of the frequency of assassinations at that period, and of their being perpetrated with but little remorse, there can be no doubt. But, before we can properly pronounce this state of things to be inconsistent with a moral nature, we ought to inquire into the civil and political condition of the country. It appears from Dr. Robertson that the power of the Scottish princes was at that time limited; so much so that an attempt to punish the crimes of a chieftain, or even of his vassals, often excited rebellions and civil wars; and that, as a general thing, the administration of justice was extremely feeble and

dilatory. "Under a government so feeble," he adds, "men assumed, as in a state of nature, the right of judging and redressing their own wrongs." There seems to have been a practical abandonment of all just public authority; and each man was in a great degree left, in the protection of his person and rights, to his own efforts. Under such circumstances, might we not reasonably expect that assassinations would be frequent? Was not this state of things essentially a mere transfer of the right of Capital Punishment, which was then universally supposed to exist, from the hands of the magistrate to the hands of individuals? If the right of taking life was acknowledged to be possessed by magistrates, might not private individuals naturally be led to suppose that the same right, in extreme cases, devolved upon them when the magistrate failed to afford protection? And, furthermore, if this condition of things, dreadful as it undoubtedly was, proves that the Scotch people were by nature destitute of a moral sense then, does it not follow that they have no moral sense, no conscience now?

◊ 271. Reference to a cruel law of the Athenians.

In connexion with the view of the subject which is now before us, we ask the attention of the reader to a single instance more. At one period of the history of Athens, it was decreed, that when the city was besieged, all the useless people should be put to death. "This," says Montesquieu," was an abominable political law, in consequence of an abominable law of nations. Among the Greeks, the inhabitants of a town taken lost their civil liberty and were sold as slaves. The taking of a town. implied its entire destruction, which is the source not only of those obstinate defences and of those unnatural actions, but likewise of those shocking laws which they sometimes enacted."

272. Of diversities and obliquities of moral judgment in connexion with speculative opinions.

Furthermore, we may reasonably expect, in the fourth place, that there will be diversities of moral judgment, based upon diversities in important speculative opinions in morals, politics, and religion, and, in truth, upon almost

« PreviousContinue »