_On_ MORALITY.
"The principles of morality are little understood among savages," says
Lord Kaimes, "and if they arrive to maturity among enlightened nations,
it is by slow degrees."
With submission to that writer, I would advance another position equally
true, "that the principles of eating and drinking are little understood
by savages, and if they arrive to maturity among civilized nations, it
is by slow degrees."
The truth is, morality consists in discharging the social duties of
life; and so far as the state of savages requires an intercourse of
duties, the moral principles seem to be as perfect in them as in more
enlightened nations. Savages in a perfectly rude state have little or no
commerce; the transactions between man and man are confined to very few
objects, and consequently the laws which regulate their intercourse and
distribute justice, must be few and simple.[64] But the crime of murder
is as severely punished by savages, as by civilized nations. Nay, I
question whether it is possible to name the barbarous tribe, which
suffers an individual to take the life of another, upon as easy terms as
the modern feudal Barons in Europe may do that of a vassal; or with the
same impunity that a planter in the West Indies takes the life of a
slave. I speak of a time of peace, and of the conduct of savages towards
their own tribes. As to war, every nation of savages has its arbitrary
customs, and so has every civilized nation. Savages are generally
partial and capricious in the treatment of their prisoners; some they
treat with a singular humanity; and others they put to death with the
severest cruelty. Well, do not civilized people the same? Did a savage
ever endure greater torments, than thousands of prisoners during the
late war? But not to mention the practice of a single nation, at a
single period; let us advert to a general rule among civilized nations;
that it is lawful to put to death prisoners taken in a garrison by
storm. The practice grounded on this rule, is as direct and as enormous
a violation of the laws of morality, as the slow deliberate tortures
exercised by the most barbarous savages on earth.
[64] It is a fact, supported by unquestionable testimony,
that the savage nations on the frontiers of these States,
have fewer vices in proportion to their virtues, than are to
be found in the best regulated civilized societies with which
we are acquainted.
Well, what are the ideas of savages respecting _theft_? How do they
differ from those of an enlightened people? Many things are possessed in
common, as provisions taken in hunting, corn, &c. Ferdinand de Soto
relates, that the tribes (and he visited hundreds in Florida) had public
granaries of corn laid up for winter, which was distributed by authority
to each family, according to its number. But for an individual to take
from this common stock without license, was considered as a criminal
defrauding of the public. And with regard to the few articles, in which
individuals acquire private property, the savages have as correct ideas
of _meum_ and _tuum_, of theft, trespass, &c. and are as careful to
guard private property from invasion, by laws and penalties, as any
civilized people. The laws of the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Six
Nations, &c. with regard to these and many other crimes, in point of
reason and equity, stand on a footing with those of the most civilized
nations; and in point of execution and observance, their administration
would do honor to any government. Among most savage nations there is a
kind of monarchy which is efficient in administration; and among those
tribes which have had no intercourse with civilized nations, and which
have not been deceived by the tricks of traders; the common arts of
cheating, by which millions of enlightened people get a living or a
fortune, are wholly unknown. This is an incontrovertible fact. I lately
became acquainted with a lad of about twelve years old, who was taken
captiv by the Indians in 1778, while a child, and had continued with
them till about ten years old. He had no recollection of the time when
he was taken, and consequently his mind could not have been corrupted
among the English. When he was restored, agreeable to the treaty, he was
a perfect savage; but what I relate the circumstance for, is this; the
lad was not addicted to a single vice. He was instant and cheerful in
obeying commands; having not even a disposition to refuse or evade a
compliance. He had no inclination to lie or steal; on the other hand, he
was always surprised to find a person saying one thing and meaning
another. In short, he knew not any thing but honesty and undisguised
frankness and integrity. A single instance does not indeed establish a
general rule; but those who are acquainted with the nativs of America
can testify that this is the general character of savages who are not
corrupted by the vices of civilized nations.
But it is said savages are revengeful; their hatred is hereditary and
perpetual. How does this differ from the hatred of civilized nations? I
question much whether the principle of revenge is not as perfect in
enlightened nations, as in savages. The difference is this; a savage
hunts the man who has offended him, like a wild beast, and assassinates
him wherever he finds him; the _gentleman_ pursues his enemy or his
rival with as much rancor as a savage, and even stoops to notice little
affronts, that a savage would overlook; but he does not stab him
privately; he hazards his own life with that of his enemy, and one or
both are very _honorably_ murdered. The principle of revenge is equally
activ in both cases; but its operation is regulated by certain arbitrary
customs. A savage is open and avows his revenge, and kills privately;
the polite and well bred take revenge in a more _honorable_ way, when
_life_ is to be the price of satisfaction; but in cases of small
affronts, they are content with privately stabbing the reputation or
ruining the fortunes of their enemies. In short, the passions of a
savage are under no restraint; the passions of enlightened people are
restrained and regulated by a thousand civil laws and accidental
circumstances of society.
But it will be objected, if savages understood principles of morality,
they would lay such passions under restraint. Not at all: Civil and
political regulations are not made, because the things prohibited are in
their own nature wrong; but because they produce inconveniencies to
society. The most enlightened nations do not found their laws and
penalties on an abstract regard to _wrong_; nor has government any
concern with that which has no influence on the peace and safety of
society. If savages, therefore, leave every man to take his own revenge,
it is a proof that they judge it the best mode of preventing the
necessity of it; that is, they think their society and government safer
under such a license, than under regulations which should control the
passions of individuals. They may have their ideas of the nature of
revenge independent of society; but it will be extremely difficult to
prove, that, abstracted from a regard to a Deity and to society, there
is such a thing as _right_ and _wrong_. I consider _morality_ merely as
it respects _society_; for if we superadd the obligations of a divine
command, we blend it with _religion_; an article in which Christians
have an infinit advantage over savages.
Considering moral duties as founded solely on the constitution of
society, and as having for their sole end the happiness of social
beings, many of them will vary in their nature and extent, according to
the particular state and circumstances of any society.
Among the ancient Britons, a singular custom prevailed; which was, a
community of wives by common consent. Every man married one woman; but a
number, perhaps ten or twelve, relations or neighbors, agreed to possess
their wives in common. Every woman's children were accounted the
children of her husband; but every man had a share in the common
defence and care of this little community.[65] Was this any breach of
morality? Not in the least. A British woman, in the time of Severus,
having become intimate with Julia Augusta, and other ladies, at the
court of Rome, had observed what passed behind the curtain; and being
one day reproached for this custom of the Britons, as infamous in the
women, and barbarous in the men; she replied, "We do that _openly_ with
the _best_ of our men, which you do _privately_ with the _worst_ of
yours." This custom, so far from being infamous or barbarous, originated
in public and private convenience. It prevented jealousy and the
injuries of adultery, in a state where private wrongs could not easily
be prevented or redressed. It might be an excellent substitute for penal
laws and a regular administration of justice. But there is a better
reason for the custom, which writers seem to have overlooked; and this
is, that a community multiplied the chances of subsistence and security.
In a savage life, subsistence is precarious, for it depends on
contingent supplies by hunting and fishing. If every individual,
therefore, should depend solely on his own good luck, and fail of
success, his family must starve. But in a community of twelve, the
probability that some one would procure provisions is increased as
twelve to one. Hence the community of provisions among most savage
nations.[66]
[65] Uxores habent deni, duodenique inter se communes; et
maxime fratres cum fratribus, et parentes cum liberis. Sed si
qui sunt ex his nati; eorum habenter liberi a quibus primum
virgines quæque ductæ sunt.---- _Cæsar de bell. Gall. Lib.
5._
[66] Let an individual depend solely on his own exertions for
food, and a single failure of crops subjects him to a famin.
Let a populous country depend solely on its own produce, and
the probability of a famine is diminished; yet is still
possible. But a commercial intercourse between all nations,
multiplies the chances of subsistence, and reduces the matter
to a certainty. China, a well peopled country, is subject to
a famin merely for want of a free commerce.
The Britons, when the Romans first visited their island, did not attend
much to the cultivation of the earth. "Interiores plerique," says Cæsar,
"frumenta non serunt, sed lacte et carne vivunt." By establishing a
community of goods, they secured themselves against the hazard of want;
and by a community of wives and offspring, they confirmed the
obligations of each to superintend the whole; or rather, changed into a
natural obligation what might otherwise depend on the feebler force of
positiv compact. Besides, it is very possible that personal safety from
the invasion of tribes or individuals, might be another motiv for
establishing these singular communities. At any rate, we must suppose
that the Britons had good civil or political reasons for this custom;
for even savages do not act without reason. And if they found society
more safe and happy, with such a custom than without it, it was most
undoubtedly right.
Should it be said, that a community is prohibited by divine command; I
would answer that it is not presumable that the old Britons had any
positiv revelation; and I do not know that the law of nature will decide
against their practice. The commands given to the Jews were positiv
injunctions; but they by no means extend to all nations, farther than as
they are founded on _immutable principles_ of right and wrong in all
societies. Many of the Mosaic precepts are of this kind; they are
unlimited in their extent, because they stand on principles which are
unlimited in their operation.
Adultery is forbidden in the Jewish laws; and so it is in the codes of
other nations. But adultery may be defined differently by different
nations; and the criminality of it depends on the particular positiv
institutions, or accidental circumstances of a nation. The same reasons
that would render a similar custom in civilized modern nations highly
criminal, might render it innocent and even necessary among the old
Britons. A prohibition to gather sticks on the Sabbath, under a penalty
of death for disobedience, might be founded on good reasons among the
ancient Jews; but it would be hard to prove that a modern law of the
same kind, would be warrantable in any nation.
No. XXI.