OCR Text |
Show D6 THE DESCENT OF MAN. PART I. help admiring him, or even an Indian Fakir, who, from a foonsh religious motive, swings suspended by a hook buried in his flesh. The other self-regarding virtues, which do not oLviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations. Tho greatest intemperance with savages is no reproach. Their utter licentiousness, not to mention unnatural crimes, is something astounding.27 As soon, however, as marriage, whether polygamous or monogamous, becomes common, jealousy will lead to the inculcation of female virtue; and this being honoured will tend to spread to the nnmarried females. How slowly it spreads to the male sex we see at the present day. Chastity eminently requires self-command; therefore it has been honoured from a very early period in the moral history of civilised man. As a consequence of this, the senseless practice of celibacy has been ranked from a remote period as a virtue.28 The hatred of indecency, which appears to us so natural as to be thought innate, and which is so valuable an aid to chastity, is a modern virtue, appertaining exclusively, as Sir G. Staunton remarks,29 to civilised life. This is shewn by the ancient religious rites of various nations, by the drawings on the walls of Pompeii, and by the practices of many savages. \Ve have now seen that actions are regarded by savages, and were probably so regarded by primeval man, as good or bad, solely as they affect in an obvious manner the welfare of the tribe,-not that of the species, nor that of man as an individual member of the 27 1\fr. M'Lennan has given ('Primitive Marriao-e' 1865 p. 17G) a good collection of facts on this head. o ' ' 28 Lecky, 'History of European Morals,' vol. i. 1869, p. 109. 29 'Embassy to China,' vol. ii. p. 34:8. CllAl'. III. MORAL SENSE. 97 tribe. rhis conclusion agrees well with the belief that the so-called moral sense is aboriginally derived from the social instincts, for both relate at first exclusively to the community. The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our standard, are, firstly, the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe. Secondly, insufficient powers of reasoning, so that the bearing of many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general welfare of the tribe is not recognised. Savages, for instance, fail to trace the multiplied evils consequent on a want of temperance, chastity, &c. And, thirdly, weak power of self-command; for this power has not been strengthened through long-continued, perhaps inherited, habit, instruction and religion. I have entered into the above details on the immorality of savages,30 because some authors have recently taken a high view of their moral nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to mistaken benevolence. 31 These authors appear to rest their conclusion on savages possessing, as they undoubtedly do possess, and often in a high degree, those virtues which are serviceable, or even necessary, for the existence of a tribal community. Concluding Remarks.-Philosophers of the derivative 32 school of morals formerly assumed that the foundation of morality lay in a form of Selfishness; but more recently in the " Greatest Happiness principle." According to the view given above, the moral sense IS 30 See on this subject copious evidence in Chap. vii. of Sir J. Lubbock, 'Origin of CiviHsation,' 1870. 31 For instance Lecky, 'Hist. European Morals,' vol. i. p. 12+. 32 This term is used in an able article in the' Westminister Re>iew,' Oct. 1869, p. 498. For the Greatest Happiness principle, see J. S. ' Mill,' Utilitarianism,' p. 17. · VOL. I. H |