162 THE PORTAL OF EVOLUTION 



what constitutes moral obligations on the part of man. There 

 have been and are yet in many countries, times and conditions 

 that make polygamy the best form of marriage, and if we 

 abolish social inequality, or if anything should largely destroy 

 the lives of men on a large scale as compared with the death- 

 rate of women, which has been the case in the savage, mur- 

 derous and warlike times of the past, polygamy might come 

 into fashion again and polygamy might even rise to a higher 

 state of virtue than monogamy. For instance, the Mormons 

 can truly boast that for the twenty-five years that they had 

 the full control of the making of their marriage laws there 

 was not such a thing as a house of ill-fame and scarcely any 

 drunkenness in Utah, and that happiness and content and 

 prosperity were at their highest. This system of polygamy 

 was abolished to prevent Utah becoming the richest State in 

 America, not for moral reasons. 



I think I have now cited enough instances to make it clear 

 that it is circumstances and cases that decide between virtue 

 and vice. It remains therefore only necessary to dwell for 

 one moment longer and to point out that virtue and vice in 

 God's eyes and in those of mankind are not synonymous. 

 Right and Wrong are defined from man's point of view by 

 state, social and religious decrees, and must be governed by 

 them until mankind has progressed further along the road of 

 evolution, and has so far progressed that he is able to control 

 all his actions and to do good for the sake of doing good. For 

 instance, for a bank manager or any person in a position of 

 trust to be dishonest is a serious crime, for it is a sin against 

 his state of life. But for a starving man to steal a loaf of 

 bread to save the life of his wife and family is a virtue in the 

 sight of God, but nevertheless must justly be punished by 

 man's laws, because it is impossible at the present stage of 

 evolution to enforce laws at all if many exceptions are to be 

 made. Again, immorality on the part of a clergyman would 

 be a vile crime, because the duty of his state of life is to 

 uphold morality, but a hot-tempered parson might be a very 

 virtuous man, and his temper might only make him the better 

 able to stir up his congregation to acts of virtue, whereas in 

 the case of a king or a judge in the eyes of God, immorality 

 would be a second-rate sin, as morality would not be one of 

 the requirements of their state of life and would therefore be 



