(2) We may make special mention of the love of power over others, which has been one of the deep roots of the perpetual internecine struggles of man.  There is a need of leadership in every group; and this need is felt more and more keenly as the groups increase in size.  At first the authority of the elders suffices, or of strong men who push to the fore at times of crisis, as in the case of the so called judges, the military dictators, as we might better call them, of early Israel.  But as Israel, grown in numbers, and feeling the need of greater unity and readiness, clamored for a king, so generally, at a certain stage of culture, permanent chiefs of some sort become necessary.  Now the chief, enjoying his sense of power, usually imposed his will upon the people; his individuality, at least, had more or less free play.  And thus, through the changing decrees of successive rulers, all sorts of varying standards became realized, and the rigidity of early custom was steadily loosened.

(3) In the hunting stage of primitive life, and even in the pastoral stage, there was little private property, and hence little opportunity for the development of the acquisitive instinct.  But with the transition to an agricultural life, and still more with the growth of commerce and the arts, private accumulation became possible.  Individual initiative began to pay; the smarter and more ingenious could outstrip their fellows by breaking through the crust of custom, while those who were hidebound by a conventional conscience were at a disadvantage.  To a large extent this lawlessness or innovation in conduct came into conflict with the individual’s conscience.  But the question “Why not?” would at once arise; if possible, a man would justify his act to himself.  And to some degree those new ways of acting would swing conscience over to their side.

(4) In earliest times each tribe lived, very, much to itself and developed its own morals, under the stress of similar forces, but without much influence from the experience of other groups.  It was thus exceedingly difficult for it to conceive of any other ways of doing things; the ancestral customs were accepted as inevitable, like the sun and the rain.  Inter-tribal conflicts first gave, perhaps, a vantage point for mutual criticism.  A clan that by some custom had an obvious advantage over its neighbors would naturally be imitated as soon as men became quick-witted enough to understand its superiority.  The taking of prisoners, the exchange of hostages or envoys, friendly missions and journeys, would give insight into one another’s life.  With the development of commerce, this mutual criticism of morals would be greatly accelerated.  So the authority of local conventions and standards would be discredited, custom would become more fluid, and individual judgment find freer play.  Especially would the more observant, the more traveled, the more reflective, tend to vary from the ideals of their neighbors.