348 THE BIRD WATCHER 
flung down upon @ery other being that shares it 
with him. He plays, in fact, the part of a devil in 
nature, but because his fellow-beings are below him- 
self in intelligence, he is not ashamed of this. Were 
he, however, to be treated in a similar way by some 
species as superior, mentally, to himself, as he is to 
animals, he might see the matter differently. 
Does right exist at all, then, as apart from might? 
That which does not rest upon some active principle 
in the scheme of nature, does not, really, exist. We 
only fancy it, and thereby are only the more shocked 
at the continual negation of what we fancy. In 
nature there is no law of right, only of might, but, 
as man develops, he becomes, gradually, aware that the 
cruel exercise of this might does not always lead to 
the best results. Therefore, he exercises it more 
mercifully, and, in doing so, thinks that he acts 
according to the law of right, as against that of might, 
whereas what he really does is to carry out the law 
of might in a more judicious manner. The idea that 
animals have rights, in regard to us, has, for me, no 
meaning. How can they have what they cannot 
conceive of having? If they have, so must vegetables. 
Whenever they enforce something against us, it is 
through might that they do it, and this might we 
have, in a greater degree, over them. The whole 
question is how, in the highest sense, it is best to 
exercise it. For the idea of right, therefore, I would 
substitute that of might, judiciously exercised, as the 
highest ideal that is in accordance with the scheme 
