SCIENCE AND MORALITY. 761 



down the bars." " Thou shalt not steal," is a maxim impressed by property- 

 holders upon non-property-holdors. It is not only conceivable, but it is abso- 

 lute verity, that a sufficient deprivation of property, and force, and delicacy of 

 temptation, would compel every one who utters it to steal, if he could get an 

 opportunity. In a philosophic sense, therefore, it is not a universal, but a class, 

 law ; its prevalence and obedience indicate that the property-holders rule so- 

 ciety, which is itself an index of advance toward civilization. No one would 

 say that, if a lion lay gorged with his excessive feast amid the scattered carcass 

 of a deer, and a jaguar or a hyena stealthily bore away a haunch thereof, the 

 act of the hyena was less virtuous than that of the lion. How does the case of 

 two bush men, between whom the same incident occurs, differ from that of the 

 two quadrupeds ? Each is doing that which tends in the highest degree to his 

 own preservation, and it may be assumed that the party against whom the spo- 

 liation is committed is not injured at all by it. Among many savage tribes theft 

 is taught as a virtue, and detection is punished as a crime. . . . Having control 

 of the forces of society, the strong can always legislate, or order, or wheedle, 

 or preach, or assume other people's money and land out of their possession into 

 their own, by methods which are not known as stealing, since, instead of vio- 

 lating the law, they inspire and create the law. But, if the under dog in the 

 social fight runs away with a bone in violation of superior force, the top dog 

 runs after him bellowing, " Thou shalt not steal," and all the other top dogs 

 unite in bellowing, " This is divine law, and not dog law " ; the verdict of the 

 top dog, so far as law, religion, and other forms of brute force are concerned, 

 settles the question. But philosophy will see in this contest of antagonistic 

 forces a mere play of opposing elements, in which larceny is an incident of social 

 weakness and unfitness to survive, just as debility and leprosy are; and would 

 as soon assume a divine command, " Thou shalt not break out in boils and 

 sores," to the weakling or leper, as one of " Thou shalt not steal," to the failing 

 straggler for subsistence. So far as the irresistible promptings of nature may be 

 said to constitute a divine law, there are really two laws. The law to him who 

 will be injured by stealing is, " Thou shalt not steal," meaning thereby, " Thou 

 shalt not suffer another to steal from you." The law to him who can not sur- 

 vive without stealing is simply, " Thou shalt, in stealing, avoid being detected." 

 So the laws forbidding unchastity were framed by those who, in the earlier 

 periods of civilization, could afford to own women, for the protection of their 

 property rights in them, against the poor who could not. . . . We do not mean, 

 by this course of reasoning, to imply that the strong in society can, or ought to, 

 be governed by the weak : that is neither possible, nor, if possible, would it be 

 any improvement. "We only assert that moral precepts are largely the selfish 

 maxims expressive of the will of the ruling forces in society, those who have 

 health, wealth, knowledge, and power, and are designed wholly for their own 

 protection and the maintenance of their power. They represent the view of the 

 winning side, in the struggle for subsistence, while the true interior law of nature 

 would represent a varying combat in which two laws would appear, viz., that 

 known as the moral or majority law, and that known as the immoral or minority 

 law, which commands a violation of the other. 



This is strong doctrine, and the passage seemed worth extracting at 

 length. It is curious, both as a specimen of the practical tendencies 

 of a certain school of thought, and as a reply to the historical skepti- 

 cism which refuses to believe that the teaching of the sophists really 



