April 9, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



517 



On this basis the further assmnption is 

 justified, that even the conscious primitive 

 morality of primitive man did not make 

 its appearance abruptly. It developed 

 very slowly, parallel, to a certain degree, 

 with the development of man in the ani- 

 mal stage into man with rudimentary in- 

 telligence. 



I presume, then, that conscious morality 

 did not begin abruptly, but developed very 

 slowly, parallel with and assisted by the 

 development and growth of human intelli- 

 gence. However, important as the human 

 intelligence may be, evidently it is not the 

 only controlling factor of morality. "We 

 see animals acting towards their fellow 

 creatures in a manner which, if seen in hu- 

 man beings, we would consider as highly 

 ethical. We all know how animals care 

 for their offspring. We see dogs licking 

 the wounds of their fellow dogs — an act 

 resembling a Samaritan service. We see 

 altruistic activities in the communities of 

 the bees and the ants. We designate these 

 animal activities as instincts and we have 

 indeed no evidence that a conscious moral- 

 ity is at the bottom of these phenomena. 

 We have, however, to keep in mind that 

 the harmonious relations between animals 

 are observed only among individuals of 

 the same species or race, or the same drove 

 or swarm, whether they are presided over 

 by a bell-wether, a queen or any other 

 single leader, or have a democratic form of 

 government with several contending lead- 

 ers. Animals belonging to different spe- 

 cies, races or strains get frequently into 

 ferocious fights as soon as they meet, or as 

 soon as there is a collision of interests and 

 instincts. There are therefore sufficient 

 reasons for assuming that the purely ani- 

 mal, instinctive element is involved to a 

 considerable degree in the moral relations 

 between individuals of the same group of 

 human beings which have some efficient 

 bond in common. 



Now let us look at the moral aspects 

 which international relations present. The 

 history of nations, civilized or uncivilized, 

 consists chiefly of a tale of more or less 

 ferocious wars interrupted by periods of 

 peace. War is nothing but wholesale 

 murder; but the men of one tribe or na- 

 tion who are murdering men of another 

 tribe or nation have no idea that they are 

 committing crimes; on the contrary, the 

 more civilized individuals among the fight- 

 ers are honestly possessed by the convic- 

 tion that they are performing a moral 

 duty. It is true that in times of peace 

 citizens of one country enjoy in another 

 country most of the privileges enjoyed by 

 the citizens of that country. This is guar- 

 anteed by treaties. There are also inter- 

 national laws which even presume to pre- 

 scribe the mode of warfare among the sig- 

 natory powers. In time of peace a sincere 

 friendly intercourse frequently prevails 

 between the individuals of various nations. 

 There are numerous international reunions 

 for the purpose of furthering human 

 knowledge and general human interests in 

 all lines of human endeavor. All these 

 facts may give us the right to speak of in- 

 ternational morality. Nevertheless, even 

 peace, especially peace in modem times 

 and among civilized people, is practically 

 nothing more than a truce during which 

 nations are feverishly active in preparing 

 for the next war, preparing to slaughter 

 their apparent friends of to-day and to 

 lead or to drive their own men to be 

 slaughtered. During peace the leaders of 

 nations are engaged in their military quar- 

 ters or in their chancelleries in spying 

 upon and intriguing against the nations 

 with whom they exchange international 

 amenities. 



In international dealings cunning and 

 deceit are essential factors in success; it is 

 diplomacy. Honesty has hardly a place 

 in these dealings. Only honor is the big 



