The origin and development of the moral ideas

IN previous chapters we have dealt with moral ideas concerning various modes of conduct which have reference to other men’s welfare—to their life or bodily comfort, their liberty, property, knowledge of truth, or self-regarding pride. But the list of duties which we owe to our fellow-creatures is as yet by no means complete. Any act, forbearance, or omission, which in some way or other diminishes or increases their happiness may on that account become a subject of moral blame or praise, being apt to call forth sympathetic retributive emotions.

To do good to others is a rule which has been inculcated by all the great teachers of morality. According to Confucius, benevolence is the root of righteousness and a leading characteristic of perfect virtue.1 In the Taouist ‘Book of Secret Blessings’ men are enjoined to be compassionate and loving, and to devote their wealth to the good of their fellow-men.2 The moralists of ancient India teach that we should with our life, means, understanding, and speech, seek to advance the welfare of other creatures in this world; that we should do so without expecting reciprocity; and that we should enjoy the prosperity of others even though ourselves unprosperous.3 The writers of classical antiquity repeatedly give expression to the idea that man is not born for himself alone, but should assist his fellow-men to the best of his ability.4 In the Old Testament we meet with the injunction, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”;5 and this was declared by Christ to be of equal importance with the commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.”6

To a reflecting mind it is obvious that the moral value of beneficence exclusively lies in the benevolent motive, and that there is nothing praiseworthy in promoting the happiness of others from selfish considerations. Confucius taught that self must be conquered before a man can be perfectly virtuous.7 According to Lao-tsze, self-abnegation is the cardinal rule for both the sovereign and the people.8 Self-denial is the chief demand of the Gospel, and is emphasised as a supreme duty by Islam.9 Generally speaking, the merit attached to a good action is proportionate to the self-denial which it costs the agent. This follows from the nature of moral approval in its capacity of a retributive emotion, as is proved by the fact that the degree of gratitude felt towards a benefactor is in a similar way influenced by the deprivation to which he subjects himself. On the other hand, there is considerable variety of opinion, even among ourselves, as to the dictates of duty, in cases where our own interests conflict with those of our fellow-men. To Professor Sidgwick it is a moral axiom that “I ought not to prefer my own lesser good to the greater good of another.”10 According to Hutcheson, we do not condemn those as evil who will not sacrifice their private interest to the advancement of the positive good of others, “unless the private interest be very small, and the publick good very great.”11

The idea that it is bad to cause harm to others and good or obligatory to promote their happiness, is in different ways influenced by the relationship between the parties; and to many cases it does not apply at all. We have previously noticed that according to early ethics an enemy is a proper object of hatred, not of love;12 and according to more advanced ideas a person who treats us badly has at all events little claim upon our kindness. The very opposite is the case with a benefactor or friend. To requite a benefit, or to be grateful to him who bestows it, is probably everywhere, at least under certain circumstances, regarded as a duty. This is a subject which in the present connection calls for special consideration.

The duty of gratefulness presupposes a disposition for gratitude.13 According to travellers’ accounts, this feeling is lacking in many uncivilised races.14 Lyon writes of the Eskimo of Igloolik:—“Gratitude is not only rare, but absolutely unknown amongst them, either by action, word, or look, beyond the first outcry of satisfaction. Nursing their sick, burying the dead, clothing and feeding the whole tribe, furnishing the men with weapons, and the women and children with ornaments, are insufficient to awaken a grateful feeling, and the very people who relieved their distresses when starving are laughed at in time of plenty for the quantity and quality of the food which was bestowed in charity.”15 Various other tribes in North America have been accused of ingratitude;16 and of some South American savages we are told that they evinced no thankfulness for the presents which were given them.17 The Fijians are described as utterly indifferent to their benefactors. The Rev. Th. Williams writes:—“If one of them, when sick, obtained medicine from me, he thought me bound to give him food; the reception of food he considered as giving him a claim on me for covering; and, that being secured, he deemed himself at liberty to beg anything he wanted, and abuse me if I refused his unreasonable request.”18 Mr. Lumholtz had a similar experience with regard to the natives of Herbert River, Northern Queensland:—“If you give one thing to a black man, he finds ten other things to ask for, and he is not ashamed to ask for all that you have, and more too. He is never satisfied.

Gratitude does not exist in his breast.”19 In several languages there is no word expressive of what we term gratitude or no phrase corresponding to our “thank you”;20 and on this fact much stress has been laid, the deficiency of language being regarded as an indication of a corresponding deficiency in feelings.

Here again we must distinguish between a traveller’s actual experience and the conclusions which he draws from it; and it seems that in many cases our authorities have been too ready to charge savages with a total lack of grateful feelings, because they have been wanting in gratitude on certain occasions. It is too much to expect that a savage should show himself thankful to any stranger who gives him a present. Speaking of the Ahts of British Columbia, Mr Sproat remarks that the Indian’s suspicion prevents a ready gratitude, as he is prone to see, in apparent kindness extended to him, some under-current of selfish motive. “He is accustomed, among his own people, to gifts made for purposes of guile, and also to presents made merely to show the greatness and richness of the giver; but, I imagine,” our author adds, “when the Aht ceases to suspect such motives—when he does not detect pride, craft, or carelessness—he is grateful, and probably grateful in proportion to the trouble taken to serve him.”21 As for the ingratitude of the Northern Queensland natives, Mr. Lumholtz himself admits that “they assume that the gift is bestowed out of fear”;22 and of the New Zealanders we are told that their total want of gratitude was particularly due to the fact that “no New Zealander ever did any kindness, or gave anything, to another, without mainly having an eye to himself in the transaction.”23 Moreover, gratitude often requires not only the absence of a selfish motive in the benefactor, but some degree of self-sacrifice. “A person,” says Mr.

Sproat, “may keep an Indian from starving all the winter through, yet, when summer comes, very likely he will not walk a yard for his preserver without payment. The savage does not, in this instance, recognise any obligation; but thinks that a person who had so much more than he could himself consume might well, and without any claim for after services, part with some of it for the advantage of another in want.”24 Mr. Powers makes a similar observation with reference to the aborigines of California:—“White men,” he says, “who have had dealings with Indians, in conversation with me have often bitterly accused them of ingratitude. ‘Do everything in your power for an Indian,’ they say, ‘and he will accept it all as a matter of course; but for the slightest service you require of him he will demand pay.’ These men do not enter into the Indian’s ideas. This ‘ingratitude’ is really an unconscious compliment to our power. The savage feels, vaguely, the unapproachable elevation on which the American stands above him. He feels that we had much and he had little, and we took away from him even his little. In his view giving does not impoverish us, nor withholding enrich us. Gratitude is a sentiment not in place between master and slave; it is a sentiment for equals. The Indians are grateful to one another.”25 Nor are men very apt to feel grateful for benefits to which they consider themselves to have a right. Thus, according to Mr.

Howitt, the want of gratitude among the South Australian Kurnai for kindnesses shown them by the whites is due to the principle of community, which is so strong a feature of the domestic and social life of these aborigines. “For a supply of food, or for nursing when sick, the Kurnai would not feel grateful to his family group. There would be a common obligation upon all to share food, and to afford personal aid and succour. This principle would also come into play as regards the simple personal property they possess, and would extend to the before-unknown articles procured from the whites. The food, the clothes, the medical attendance which the Kurnai receive from the whites, they take in the accustomed manner; and, in addition to this, we must remember that the donors are regarded as having unlimited resources. They cannot be supposed by the Kurnai to be doing anything but giving out of their abundance.”26 Mr. Guppy found the same principle at work among the Solomon Islanders:—“Often when during my excursions I have come upon some man who was preparing a meal for himself and his family, I have been surprised at the open-handed way in which he dispensed the food to my party of hungry natives. No gratitude was shown towards the giver, who apparently expected none.”27 It has also been observed that the want of gratitude with which Arabs have often been charged by Europeans has arisen “from the very common practice of hospitality and generosity, and from the prevailing opinion that these virtues are absolute duties which it would be disgraceful and sinful to neglect.”28

We should further remember that savages often take care not to display their emotions. Among the Melanesians, according to Dr. Codrington, “it is not the custom to say anything by way of thanks; it is rather improper to show emotion when anything is given, or when friends meet again; silence with the eyes cast down is the sign of the inward trembling or shyness which they feel, or think they ought to feel, under these circumstances. There is no lack of a word which may be fairly translated ‘thank’; and certainly no one who has given cause for it will say that Melanesians have no gratitude; others probably are ready enough to say it.”29 Of the North American Chippewas Major Strickland writes:—“If an Indian makes a present, it is always expected that one equally valuable should be given in return. No matter what you give them, or how valuable or rich the present, they seldom betray the least emotion or appearance of gratitude, it being considered beneath the dignity of a red man to betray his feelings. For all this seeming indifference, they are in reality as grateful, and, I believe, even more so than our own peasantry.”30 The Aleuts also, although they are chary of expressions of thanks, “do not forget kindness, and endeavour to express their thankfulness by deeds. If anyone assists an Aleut, and afterwards offends him, he does not forget the former favour, and in his mind it often cancels the offence.”31 From the want of a word for a feeling we must not conclude that the feeling itself is wanting. Mr.

Sproat observes:—“The Ahts have, it is true, no word for gratitude, but a defect in language does not absolutely imply defect in heart; and the Indian who, in return for a benefit received, says, with glistening eyes, that his heart is good towards his benefactor, expresses his gratitude quite as well perhaps as the English man who says ‘Thank you.’”32