198 Conclusion. 



of this theory to the results of biological research, 

 must in the first place, be branded as unscientific','^ 

 for it mistakes sensation for spiritual life, and 

 instinct for intelligence, thus being diametrically at 

 variance with the principles of critical psychology. 

 Secondly, its assertion, that the brute is gifted with 

 reason and consciousness of duty as well as man, 

 although in a different degree, is an evident falsehood, 

 which is given the lie by the actual biological facts. 

 But this popular psychology is not only unscientific 

 and untruthful; it is far worse. To be candid, it is 

 demoralizing and fraught with moral danger to the 

 human social order. Hence we must do more than 

 merely shrug our shoulders in contemptuous pity, we 

 must take a decided stand against it and combat it 

 with all our might. 



By denying the existence of the essential differ- 

 ence between animal and human psychic faculties, this 

 psychology not only raises the brute to the level of 

 man, but degrades man to the level of the brute. 

 Would to God that this were done in theory only; 

 but, alas, the practical consequence of this false theory 

 is the demoralization and hrutalization of man. This 

 is the goal aimed at by those books and pamphlets, 



^) Let me once more protest, as I have already done in Chap. I of 

 "Instinct and Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom," that there is no 

 wish on my part to identify the scientific representatives of our modern 

 zoological psychology with the champions of animal intelligence like 

 Brehm, Buechner, etc. This would be an injustice to very many 

 sober-minded naturalists, who condemn just as we do the humanization 

 of the animal. Nor do we in any manner intend to pass judgment on 

 the personal motives of Brehm, Buechner and other defenders of 

 animal intelligence and animal morality, but we only judge of their 

 writings. This remark is added here expressly to avoid misunder- 

 standings. 



