COMMON law and common usage all the world over hold men answerable for
their acts, and blame or punish them when those acts transgress the laws
of custom.
Human law, like the divine law, is based upon the false idea that men
know what is right and what is wrong, and have power to choose the
right.
Human law, like divine law, classifies men as good and bad, and punishes
them for doing "wrong."
But men should not be classified as good and bad, but as fortunate and
unfortunate, as weak and strong.
And the unfortunate and weak should not be blamed, but pitied; should
not be punished but helped.
The just and wise course is to look upon all wrong-doers as we look upon
the ignorant, the diseased, the insane, and the deformed.
Many of our wrong-doers are ignorant, or diseased, or insane, or
mentally deformed. But there are some who are base or savage by nature.
These should be regarded as we regard base or savage animals: as
creatures of a lower order, dangerous, but not deserving blame nor
hatred. And this is the sound view, as I shall show, because these
unhappy creatures are nearer to our brutish ancestors than other men,
the ancient strain of man's bestial origin cropping out in them through
no fault of their own.
Religion says man is the product of God; science says he is the product
of "heredity" and "environment." The difference does not matter much to
my case. The point is that man does not create himself, and so is not to
blame for his nature, and, therefore, is not to blame for his acts.
For man did not help God in the act of his creation, nor did he choose
his own ancestors.
"What! do you mean to say that the ruffian, the libertine, and the knave
are not to be blamed nor punished for any of the vile and cruel acts
they perpetrate?" asks "the average man."
Yes. That is what I mean. And that is not a new and startling "craze,"
as many may suppose, but is a piece of very ancient wisdom; as old as
the oldest thought of India and of Greece. In the _Bhagavad-gita_ it is
written:
He sees truly who sees all actions to be done by nature alone, and
likewise the self not the doer.
And Socrates said:
It is an odd thing that if you had met a man ill-conditioned in body you
would not have been angry; but to have met a man rudely disposed in mind
provokes you.
Neither am I unsupported to-day in my heresies. Most theologists are
opposed to me, but most men of science are with me: they look upon man
as a creature of "heredity" and "environment."
What a man _does_ depends upon what he _is_; and what he _is_ depends
upon his "breed" and his "experience."
We admit that no two men are quite alike. We should not expect men who
are unlike in nature and in knowledge to do like acts. Where the causes
are different it is folly to expect identical effects.
Every man is that which his forbears (his ancestors) and his experiences
(his environment) have made him. Every man's character is formed
partly by "heredity" (breed, or descent) and partly by "environment"
(experience, or surroundings). That is to say, his character depends
partly upon the nature of his parents, and partly upon the nature of his
experience.
He comes into the world just as his ancestors have made him. He did not
choose his ancestors; he had nothing to do with the moulding of their
natures. Every quality, good or bad, in his own nature, has been handed
down to him by his forbears, without knowledge or consent.
How can we blame the new-born or unborn baby for the nature and
arrangement of the cells--which are _he?_
Born into the world as he was made, he is a helpless infant, dependent
upon his nurses and his teachers. He did not choose his nurses, nor
his teachers; he cannot control their conduct towards him, nor test the
truth nor virtue of the lessons he learns from them.
He grows older the nature he inherited from his ancestors is modified,
for better or for worse, by the lessons and the treatment given to him
by his nurses, his companions, and his teachers.
So, when he becomes a man he is that which his forbears and his fellow
creatures have made him.
That is to say, he is the product of his heredity and his environment.
He could not be otherwise.
How, then, can it be just to blame him for being that which he _must_
be?
But, it may be objected, a man has power to change, or to conquer, his
environment; to train, or to subdue, his original nature.
That depends upon the strength of his original nature (which his
ancestors handed down to him) and of his environment--which consists,
largely, of the actions of his fellow-creatures.
A man has power to do that which his forbears have made him able to do.
He has power to do no more.
He has certain powers given him by his forbears, which may have been
developed or repressed by his surroundings. With those powers, as
modified by the influences surrounding and outside himself, he may do
all that his nature desires and is able to do. Up to the limit of his
inherited powers he may do all that his environment (his experiences)
have taught or incited him to do.
To speak of a man conquering his environment is the same thing as to
speak of a man swimming against a stream. He can swim against the stream
if he has strength and skill to overcome the stream. His strength is his
heredity: his skill is the result of his environment. If his strength
and skill are more than equal to the force of the stream he will
conquer his environment; if the stream is too strong for him he will be
conquered by his environment.
His acts, in short, depend wholly upon his nature and his environment:
neither of which is of his own choosing. Of this I will say more in its
place.
A man gets his nature from his forbears, just as certainly as he gets
the shape of his nose, the length of his foot, and the colour of his
eyes from his forbears.
As we do not blame a man for being born with red or black hair, why
should we blame him for being born with strong passions or base desires?
If it is foolish to blame a child for being born with a deformed or
weak spine, how can it be reasonable to blame him for being born with a
deformed or weak brain?
The nature and quality of his hair and his eyes, of his spine and his
brain, of his passions and desires, were all settled _for_ and not _by_
him before he drew the breath of life.
If we blame a man because he has inherited fickleness from an Italian
grandfather, or praise him because he has inherited steadfastness from
a Dutch grandmother, we are actually praising or blaming him because,
before he was born, an Italian married a Hollander.
If we blame a man for inheriting cupidity from an ancestor who was
greedy and rapacious, or for inheriting licentious inclinations from an
ancestor who was a rake, we are blaming him for failing to be born of
better parents.
Briefly, then, heredity makes, and environment modifies, a man's nature.
And both these forces are _outside_ the man.
Therefore man becomes that which he is by the action of forces outside
himself. Therefore it is unjust to blame a man for being that which he
is. Therefore it is unjust to blame him for doing that which he does.
Therefore our human laws, which punish men for their acts, are unjust
laws.
Now, before we go fully into the meanings of the words "heredity" and
"environment," let us make a short summary of the arguments above put
forth.
Since man did not create his own nature, man is not responsible for his
own acts.
Therefore all laws, human or divine, which punish man for his acts are
unjust laws.