THE SCIENCE OF MORALITY. 663 



has firmly established this principle ; it is incorporated into all codes 

 of morals. 



In the physical sciences we explain any particular phenomenon by 

 laws already established. We explain the reason why any particular 

 candle burns and gives off light, by laws already discovered of oxida- 

 tion and incandescence. So in the science of morality we deter- 

 mine whether any particular action is right or wrong, by referring 

 the action under consideration to laws that have eebn already estab- 

 lished. 



Certain laws conduce more to the well-being of humanity than oth- 

 ers. Thus, the law, It is wrong to murder, is of vastly more impor- 

 tance than the law, It is wrong to lie. Because, if we all committed 

 murder, the world would be depopulated ; while, if we all told lies, 

 there would be a sad confusion, yet some of us would manage to exist. 

 Hence, to commit murder is a greater wrong than to tell a lie, and a 

 man would be perfectly justified in telling a lie in order to escape 

 either becoming a murderer or being himself murdered. In this man- 

 ner we can test the relative importance of moral laws. 



As the attraction of gravitation differs under different circum- 

 stances, although the law of gravitation always remains the same, so 

 can a falsehood, according to circumstances, be a greater or lesser 

 wrong be a so-called white lie of society, be the business lie of the 

 dishonest tradesman, or the criminal lie of the perjurer and still the 

 law, It is wrong to lie, would remain unassailed. We determine by 

 deduction whether any particular action is right or wrong : If the act 

 is in conflict with a law of morality, it is wrong ; if not in conflict, it 

 is right. 



The laws of morality are not all of the same relative importance. 

 Those laws which are more vital to the well-being of humanity are 

 more important than those laws which are less vital. Hence, occasions 

 can arise when we are justified in breaking one law, in order that we 

 may escape breaking another of greater importance. 



The thinking mind of to-day asks, Is there a scientific basis for mo- 

 rality ? I think there is. The modified doctrine of utility, or, as I 

 have expressed it, conducive to the well-being of humanity, is the basis 

 which science seeks. We deduce, from the experience of races and 

 nations for centuries and for ages, the laws in regard to conduct which 

 are for man's best welfare. These laws, systematically arranged, would 

 constitute the science of morality or morals. As yet such a science 

 does not exist. The material is all at hand ; it but awaits the master- 

 workman to fashion it into shape. 



An incidental question here arises. Had we a most complete sci- 

 ence of morality, would it affect, either for better or for worse, the 

 morality of the masses ? At present the dictates of morality are en- 

 forced in three ways : By the so-called criminal or penal laws of the 

 land ; by public opinion, or the opinion of society ; by the teachings of 



