[148] Mandeville, op. cit. p. 187.
[149] Brooke, Ten Years in Saráwak, i. 100. Cf. Rengger, Naturgeschichte in der Säugethiere von Paraguay, p. 26.
[150] Hardy, Manual of Budhism, pp. 478, 480.
[151] Cobbe, op. cit. p. 10.
At present there is among ourselves no topic of moral concern which presents a greater variety of opinion than the question how far the happiness of the lower animals may be justly sacrificed for the benefit of man. The extreme views on this subject might, no doubt, be somewhat modified, on the one hand by a more vivid representation of animal suffering, on the other hand by the recognition of certain facts, often overlooked, which make it unreasonable to regard conduct towards dumb creatures in exactly the same light as conduct towards men. It should especially be remembered that the former have none of those long-protracted anticipations of future misery or death which we have.[152] If they are destined to serve as meat they are not aware of it; whereas many domestic animals would never have come into existence, and been able to enjoy what appears a very happy life, but for the purpose of being used as food. But though greater intellectual discrimination may somewhat lessen the divergencies of moral opinion on the subject, nothing like unanimity can be expected, for the simple reason that moral judgments are ultimately based upon emotions, and sympathy with the animal world is a feeling which varies extremely in different individuals.
[152] Cf. Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, p. 311, n.
CHAPTER XLV
REGARD FOR THE DEAD
MORALITY takes notice not only of men’s conduct towards the living but of their conduct towards the dead.
There is a general tendency in the human mind to assume that what has existed still exists and will exist. When a person dies it is difficult for those around him to conceive that he is really dead, and when the cold motionless body bears sad testimony to the change which has taken place, there is a natural inclination to believe that the soul has only changed its abode. In the savage the tendency to assume the continued existence of the soul after death is strongly supported by dreams and visions of his deceased friends. What else could these mean but visits of their souls?