126 APHORISMS AND REFLECTIONS 



would be nothing to qualify our admiration of the 

 action of the one on the other. But the fact that the 

 deer suffers, while the wolf inflicts suffering, engages 

 our moral sympathies. We should call men like the 

 deer innocent and good, men such as the wolf 

 malignant and bad ; we should call those who 

 defended the deer and aided him to escape brave and 

 compassionate, and those who helped the wolf in his 

 bloody work base and cruel. Surely, if we transfer 

 these judgments to nature outside the world of man 

 at all, we must do so impartially. In that case, the 

 goodness of the right hand which helps the deer, 

 and wickedness of the left hand which eggs on the 

 wolf, will neutralize one another : and the course of 

 nature will appear to be neither moral nor immoral, 

 but non-moral. 



This conclusion is thrust upon us by analogous 

 facts in every part of the sentient world ; yet, inas- 

 much as it not only jars upon prevalent prejudices, 

 but arouses the natural dislike to that which is 

 painful, much ingenuity has been exercised in devis- 

 ing an escape from it. 



From the point of view of the moralist the animal 

 world is on about the same level as a gladiator's 

 show. The creatures are fairly well treated, and 

 set to fight whereby the strongest, the swiftest, 

 and the cunningest live to fight another day. The 

 spectator has no need to turn his thumbs down, as 

 no quarter is given. He must admit that the skill 

 and training displayed are wonderful. But he must 

 shut his eyes if he would not see that more or less 

 enduring suffering is the meed of both vanquished 

 and victor. And since the great game is going on 

 in every corner of the world, thousands of times a 



