MORAL NATURE. 319 



right and wrong. But there is an important differ- 

 ence. No animals ever developed this quality spon- 

 taneously, for it must always be taught to them by 

 man, and it is found only in exceptional cases. But 

 it is universally present in man, and since he is the 

 highest animal, he must either have developed it 

 himself or have received it from some superior being. 

 We send missionaries to the savages, but no one ever 

 conceived the idea of sending them to a zoological 

 garden. If then our evolutionist is looking for the 

 equivalent of the moral sense in animals, he must look 

 for it among the qualities which they have developed 

 spontaneously. Now we do find habits among ani- 

 mals somewhat difficult to understand. They care- 

 fully protect their young, they frequently will de- 

 fend each other when attacked, they sometimes, 

 though not frequently, care for the injured ; they 

 warn each other of danger, and assist each other in 

 various ways. All such actions are regarded in man 

 as praiseworthy, but certainly not as moral. It is of 

 course impossible to say just what may be the feel- 

 ings of a dog who risks and loses his life in rescuing 

 his master. Very likely they are similar to those of 

 a man who, upon a sudden impulse, risks his life to 

 save a person from a burning building. Neither act 

 would be moral, for its opposite would not be wrong. 

 But both would be heroic. Most people will not 

 regard any of these actions on the part of animals 

 as in any sense equivalent to moral actions in man. 

 The Darwinian school, however, as we shall presently 

 see, does regard them as similar, both in their nature 

 and origin. 



