92 EVOLUTION AND RELIGION 



rendering of the golden rule, is after all only the nega- 

 tive side of man's ideal of right conduct as regards the 

 use of property. When you come, however, to the 

 positive side of the ideal, viz., that a man shall use 

 his property for the benefit of others as well, then it 

 seems to me that you are, in the present day at least, 

 traveling out of the domain of law into what is as yet 

 only the realm of ideals, and not a generally accepted 

 ideal at that. In homely English, you would be trying 

 to put the cart before the horse, to establish the law 

 before the ideal had become generally accepted among 

 men. Law, by the very nature of it, must deal mainly 

 with the negative side of the ideal, the "Thou shalt 

 nots" of human conduct. As commonly expressed, 

 you cannot by legislation make a people moral. The 

 best that you can do, by law, is apparently to prevent 

 men from too flagrantly sinning against the crystallized 

 ideals of their race. But when you would have law 

 invade the positive side of the ideal as well, the " Thou 

 shalts " of human conduct, then it seems to me that you 

 are treading on very delicate ground. For how is it 

 with the family life to-day, of which human society 

 under our new thought is to become only an enlarge- 

 ment ? Can a father forcibly impose upon any one 

 of his sons, who, through native ability, foresight, 

 shrewdness or self-denial, happens to be better off 

 than the rest of his brothers, the duty of devoting his 

 property, as clothed with a family interest, to the gen- 

 eral family use? Not in the least. The regulation 

 of such matters is left, and left wisely in my opinion, 



