circles; but even as yet there is little of it in international relations.  The old double standard of morality persists in spite of the command to which we give theoretic allegiance-"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.  But I say unto you, Love your enemies!” From the same lips came the final answer to the question, “Who is my neighbour?” It can be found in the tenth chapter of the Gospel according to Luke.  By what means was social morality produced?

(1) The earliest source of social morality lies in the maternal instinct; the first animal that took care of its young stood at the beginning of this wonderful advance.  The originating causes of the first slight care of eggs or offspring lay, no doubt, in some obscure physiological readjustments, due to forces irrelevant to morality.  But the young that had even such slight care had a survival advantage over their rivals, and would transmit the rudimentary instinct to their offspring.  Thus, given a start in that direction, natural selection, steadily favoring the more maternally disposed, produced species with a highly developed and long continuing maternal love.  In similar manner but in lesser degree a paternal instinct was developed.  The existence of these instincts implied the power of sympathy and altruistic action that is, action by one individual for another’s welfare.  From sympathy for offspring to sympathy for mate and other members of the group was but a step; and all sympathetic action may have its ultimate source in mother love.

(2) Not only was natural selection early at work in the rivalry for existence between individuals, protecting those stocks that had the stronger maternal and paternal instincts, but it played an important part in the struggle between groups.  Those species that developed the ability to keep together for mutual protection or for advantage.  And within a species those particular herds or flocks or tribes that cooperated best outlived the others.  With the strongest animals, such as lions and tigers, and with the weakest, such as rabbits and mice, the instinct to stand by one another is of no value and so was never fostered by natural selection.  But in many species of animals of intermediate strength, that by cooperation might be able to resist attack or overcome enemies that they would singly be impotent against, the cooperative instinct became strongly developed.  Notably in such case was man; and we find group consciousness, tribal loyalty, continually enhanced by the killing off of the tribes in which it was feebler.  The dominant races in man’s internecine struggles have been those of passionate patriotism and capacity for working together.  Nature has socialized man by a repeated application of the method hinted at in the adage “United we stand, divided we fall.”  Successful war demands loyalty and obedience, self-forgetfulness and mutual service.  It demands also the cessation of internal squabbling, the restraint of individual greed, lust, and caprice.  At first instinctive, these virtues came with clearing consciousness to be deliberately cultivated by the tribe, in ways which we shall in a moment indicate.