As chieftainship is established, aggression upon and disobedience to the leader are regarded as greater evils still. That is, political control begins to differentiate from the more indefinite control of mutual dread. Meanwhile there has been developing the ghost-theory. The double of a deceased man is con- f ceived as able to injure the survivors. Now there grows up another kind of check on immediate satisfaction of the desires a check constituted by ideas of the evils which ghosts may inflict if offended; and when political headship gets settled, and the ghosts of dead chiefs are especially dreaded, there begins to take shape the form of restraint distinguished as religious. These three differentiated forms of control, while enforcing kindred restraints and incentives, also enforce one another. All of them involve the sacrifice of immediate special benefits for the sake of more distant and general benefits.

But joint aggressions upon men outside of the society cannot prosper if there are many aggressions within the society. Gradually, as the power of the ruler becomes greater, he forbids the aggressions and inflicts punishments for disobedience. Presently, political restraints of this class are enforced by religious restraints. Dread of the ghost of the dead chief tends to produce regard for the commands he habitually gave, and they eventually acquire sacredness. With further social evolution come further interdicts, until eventually there grows up a body of civil laws, the breach of which is also

disapproved by the society and looked upon as displeasing to the gods.

These three controls, political, religious, and social, however, do not constitute the moral control, but are only preparatory to it. The moral restraints refer not to the extrinsic effects of actions, but to their intrinsic effects, not to the incidental, . collateral, non-necessary consequences of the acts, but to the consequences which the acts naturally produce. "The truly moral deterrent from murder is not constituted by a representation of hanging as a consequence, or by a representation of the tortures of hell as a consequence, or by a representation of the horror and hatred excited in fellowmen; but by a representation of the necessary natural results-the infliction of death-agony on the victim, the destruction of all his possibilities of happiness, the entailed sufferings to his belongings." "Only after political, religious, and social restraints have produced a stable community, can there be sufficient experience of the pains, positive and negative, sensational and emotional, which crimes of aggression cause, as to generate that moral aversion to them constituted by consciousness of their intrinsically evil results."

But I do not always fear the social, political, and religious punishments when I contemplate a certain act, nor do I think of the immediate consequences which it has upon others. I simply feel that the act ought not to be done, I feel its authoritative

ness and its obligation without considering any of these effects at all. Now the question arises, How does there arise this feeling of moral obligation in general? It is an abstract sentiment generated in a manner analogous to that in which abstract ideas are generated. "Accumulated experiences have produced the consciousness that guidance by feelings which refer to remote and general results is usually more conducive to welfare than guidance by feelings to be immediately gratified." The idea of authoritativeness has come to be connected with feelings having these traits. This idea of authoritativeness is one element in the abstract consciousness of duty. But there is another element - the element of coerciveness. The sense of coerciveness or compulsion which the consciousness of duty includes, and which the word obligation indicates, has been generated by fears of the political, social, and religious penalties. Now, this sense of coerciveness becomes directly connected with the above-mentioned moral feelings in this way. The political, social, and religious motives are mainly formed of represented future results (of penalties), and so is the moral restraining motive (of the intrinsic effects). Hence it happens "that the representations, having much in common, and often being aroused at the same time, the fear joined with the three sets becomes, by association, joined with the fourth. Thinking of the extrinsic effects of a forbidden act excites a dread which continues present while the

intrinsic effects of the act are thought of; and, being thus linked with these intrinsic effects, causes a vague sense of moral compulsion.”1

Heredity plays an important part in the process. There have been, and still are, developing in the race certain fundamental moral intuitions. Though these moral intuitions are the result of accumulated experiences of utility, gradually organized and inherited, they have come to be quite independent of conscious experience. The experiences of utility organized and consolidated through all past generations of the human race have been producing corresponding nervous modifications, which, by continued transmission and accumulation, have become in us certain faculties of moral intuition - certain emotions responding to right and wrong conduct, which have no apparent basis in the individual experiences of utility.2

1 Data of Ethics, §§ 44 ff.

2 Ib., § 45. See Spencer's letter Mill, quoted in § 45 of the Data of Ethics: "To make my position fully understood, it seems needful to add that, corresponding to the fundamental propositions of a developed Moral Science, there have been, and still are, developing in the race, certain fundamental moral intuitions; and that, though these moral intuitions are the results of accumulated experiences of Utility, gradually organized and inherited, they have come to be quite independent of conscious experience. Just in the same way that I believe the intuition of space, possessed by any living individual, to have arisen from organized and consolidated experiences of all antecedent individuals who bequeathed to him their slowly developed nervous organizations-just as I believe that this intuition, requiring only to be made definite and complete by personal experiences, has practically become a form of

Here, it seems to me, we get the compromise between extreme intuitionism and extreme empiricism of which I spoke before. Spencer is perfectly conscious of his relationship to the two schools. "It is possible," he says, "to agree with moralists of the intuitive school respecting the existence of a moral sense, while differing with them respecting its origin. I have contended in the foregoing division of this work, and elsewhere, that though there exist feelings of the kind alleged, they are not of supernatural origin, but of natural origin; that, being generated by the discipline of the social activities, internal and external, they are not alike in all men, but differ more or less everywhere in proportion as the social activities differ; and that, in virtue of their mode of genesis, they have a coördinate authority with the inductions of utility." "But now, while we are shown that the moral-sense doctrine in its original form is not true, we are also shown that it adumbrates a truth, and a much higher truth. thought, apparently quite independent of experience; so do I believe that the experiences of utility, organized and consolidated through all past generations of the human race, have been producing corresponding nervous modifications, which, by continued transmission and accumulation, have become in us certain faculties of moral intuition- certain emotions responding to right and wrong conduct, which have no apparent basis in the individual experiences of utility. I also hold that, just as the space-intuition responds to the exact demonstrations of Geometry, and has its rough conclusions interpreted and verified by them; so will moral intuitions respond to the demonstrations of Moral Science, and will have their rough conclusions interpreted and verified by them.” 1 The Inductions of Ethics, § 117.