THE EVOLUTION OF THE MORAL SENSE 95 



served those clans that developed codes of morals, 

 leading to unitj^ but could it have developed a moral 

 sense which urges one to sacrifice himself, his home, 

 and even his country to an ideal? 



But it is exactly such a feeling that must be ac- 

 counted for in explaining the moral sense. Upon the 

 question of the development of codes it is not likely 

 that there would be much difference of opinion. 

 That man's idea of what is right and what is wrong 

 has been subject to a gradual elevation is simply a 

 matter of history, attested equally by secular and 

 religious grounds. The real question comes when 

 we ask for the origin of the impulse that impels man 

 to do right, whatever be the consequences. It has 

 generally been held that however low the stage of 

 moral codes among savages, they always possess a 

 moral sense. AVhile savages regard as right many 

 acts which we condemn, still they do recognize some 

 acts as right and some as wrong, and hence have a 

 moral sense. In this they are in sharp contrast to 

 animals, for among the latter the moral sense is 

 admittedly absent. To what extent is it possible to 

 account for the origin of this moral sense as a social 

 inheritance, and hence as acquired by each individA 

 ual, and to what extent must it be attributed to or-l 

 ganic inheritance and therefore innate? ' 



This question is evidently twofold, for it resolves 

 itself into the two questions; (1) How did the moral 

 sense arise in primitive man? and (2) How does the 

 moral sense arise in the individual? Certainly, the 

 babe is born to-day without any conscience, and 

 equally sure is it that conscience develops in the 

 growing child. If we accept the theory of a natural 

 origin of man, it follows also that at one time in 



