Timeline: Antiquity » Medieval » Renaissance » Age of Enlightenment: Restoration » Augustan » Sensibility » Romantic Age » Victorian Age » Early 20thc.

Universal Magazine

1805-Sep | Dofrumn, letter to the editor, "Effect of Habit on the Moral Character," Universal Magazine 22 (1805-Sep): 212-216; Digitized by Google, Online at Google Books.

Effect of Habit on the Moral Character

letter to the editor-Universal Magazine

Sir,

The effect of habit upon the moral character has not been sufficiently attended to; though the connection between custom and principle is confessedly great, and it frequently lead to results not expected, and consequently not guarded against. The early association of the mind often ripen into settled notions; expand with the growth of man, and according to their rectitude or obliquity, produce consequences either happy or calamitous. Hence we may infer the important necessity of watching over the actions of children with scrupulous attention; it may be said of example, that one precedent is almost sure to create another; a and an action once tolerated, gains immense ground in the mind of an infant; for we naturally ascribe to age wisdom, and to our parent or governors, a sort of sovereign supremacy, and infallibility. Now, if those, infallible guardians sanction by their neutrality, any line of conduct whatsoever, the ductile mind of infants instantly decides that such conduct must be proper. Being itself unaccustomed to, and in fact, for the most part, incapable of analyzing actions, and estimating heir natural and moral propriety or impropriety, by an secular or religious criterion, it is in every respect the passive recipient of the ideas of those to who we are entrusted in our tender years; and accordingly, as they implant in us the sentiments of virtue, justice, and equity, so do we grow up. The mind of a child has been considered by some as a mere tabula rasa, as adopting unconsciously, the impressions of good or ill; it is endued by nature, or at least this is the opinion of some ingenious philosophers, with so little discrimination or energy of thinking and judging, that it may even admit the one for the other, and, however strange it may appear, be taught to receive the dictates of impiety, injustice, and villainy, as the solemn language of truth and virtue. It is impossible to convince a child of ordinary abilities, of the truth of a self-evident proposition, except it be such obvious ones as that two and tow are four, that a whole is greater than its parts,&c. but let the most profound metaphysician try the experiment for once, and see whether they can establish in the mind of a child the following truism, that "it is impossible to be and not to be," at the same time He will quickly find, that the child must learn the meaning of the terms; for this last is an abstract proposition, relating to a science at once complicated and obscure. Yet, abstractedly considered, it is as obviously self-evident, as that two and two are four.

It would be a matter of not incurious speculation, to contemplate the figure, as we call it, which a man would make in society, on whom the experiment had been tried, of invariably substituting wrong for right, and thus giving him a kind of retrograde education, as to moral principle and conduct—whether such a catechumen would not be, in many respect, inferior to a savage of Labradore? For, let it be observed, that by pursuing such a method, the natural sentiments of the human heart would be obliterate, as I conceive, inasmuch as our received systems of education have for their object to improve upon nature, and to expand the germs of virtuous excellence which she has sown. In some instance, I am apt to think, that a man so brought up, would be precisely and uncultivated savage; he would have may points of similitude, in common with the "untutored Indian," because the refined arks of civilized society have engendered certain duties, which will ever naturally arise from men being so associate; but which duties are altogether unknown to mankind in its pristine, or unembellished state. The moral code of nature I extremely simple, consisting of but few precepts, which are perfectly well known to man, and which sufficiently bind them in their unorganized condition.

Speaking temperately, a man might, I should think, be taught in many instances, to act in a manner diametrically opposite to what custom has prescribed, and yet act conformably to the suggestions of nature and unsophisticated reason. The moral character of men is replete with selfishness, hypocrisy, and contradictions; a selfish principle often leads a man astray, instead of expanding his heart with universal philanthropy, and imbuing him with ideas that rest upon the broad principles of general and active utility. If he possess an instinctive spirit of self-enquiry, and ardent love of truth, and an abhorrence of threat passiveness, which is prone to believe every thing which it cannot comprehend; he will soon reveal the flimsy covering which conceals from mankind their true line of conduct, in the path of conscientious duty, substituting in its stead, a creed composed of dogmas, which are founded in error, supported by opinion, and believed from weakness. Nor will he desist from this scrutiny, influenced by the consideration, that designing and superficial individuals, will stigmatize his character. The self-thinking, self-acting intrepidity of his mind, will not only give ardour in the pursuit, but urge him on to surmount all the obstacles that may be thrown in his way. It requires indeed, not common vigour of genius, or rather of intellectual perspicacity, to suspect the existence of error in that which all are unanimous in upholding; and it appears to men that many men, who really possess this first gift requisite towards the attainment of truth, are intimidated from the pursuit, through a too delicate apprehension, if I may so call it, of what may follow; and an injurious veneration for the opinion of his neighbours, and of the world at large.

This is a subject on which I could with pleasure expatiate; but as it is in some measure foreign to the professed object of this paper, I shall wave any further amplification for the present, and apologizing for the episodical interruption, proceed to my proper object.

I have already declared my opinion as to the intimate connexion which invariably subsists between habit, and the moral principles which regulate the human character; whence I infer the necessity of paying strict attention to such early habits as children are susceptible of, and are apt to acquire. All this was laid down as introductory to a consideration of the following question, "What kind of influence cruelty to animals may produce upon the morals?"

It is well observed by our great ethic poet, that, "Just as the twig is bent the tree's inclin'd;" A maxim which strongly inculcates the invincible powers of habit. But of habits, as of every thing else under the sun, there are degrees, some being of greater importance than others, either from their inveteracy, or from the evil which they are likely to draw after them. And I am bold to give my opinion here, that among the most inveterate, as well as most productive of evil and calamity, I must recon that habit which derides the sufferings of the animal creation. According to my judgment, there is not a more repulsive sight than that of young persons indulging the horrid luxury of beholding the agonies and distortions which the infliction of pain upon dumb creatures produces. Man is ordained by scriptural authority, to be the natural lord over all that lives, and he ought, in course, to be their natural protector; he should never oppress those who cannot resist, nor punish, where offence cannot in the nature of things be given. And can it be expected, let me ask, that the wretch who beholds, unconcerned, the corporeal sufferings of a mute and helpless animal, should ever feel for the woes of a fellow-countryman or mortal? NO. The same tender sensibility of mind, the same "impenetrable stuff," which prompts us to participate in the feelings of the meanest creature that lives, prompts us also to sigh and mourn over the calamities of our brethren. Nay, more; unfeelingness is more venial in the one case than in the other. Man is often the purveyor of his own misery; animals, it should be observed never are; man often suffers justly, animals never can; they are almost always the victims of human avarice, or brutality. If there be degrees of cruelty, that surely is the greatest, which is shown towards those animals which seem to seek our fostering and kind protection. The prowling tyrants of the desart—that lordly savage the lion, the blood-stained hyena, the deathful serpent, or the voracious tiger—seem by their nature to be placed in a kind of hostilities with man; though even to these, I would shew no enmity or needless cruelty. But what feelings must he possess, who can behave with inhumanity towards the noble, generous steed, who carries him safely to his destination, whether for pleasure, for health, or interest;—the faithful, the affectionate, the humble dog, who guards him while he sleeps, who follows him to the last gasp of departing life, who repines not, nor deserts him, though hunger, perhaps, be his constant lot; who no ill usage can alienate, no caresses can inveigle or corrupt; who raised the mute eye of imploring pity, when the uplifted hand threatens him with destruction; and who even licks the hand which has chastised him. Between these, (and others that might be enumerated) there seems to be a kind of mutual reciprocal affection established by nature, as if to compel man, in despite of himself, to be just and merciful. But yet how seldom do we attend to this plain monition!

Children, from their earliest infancy, should be grounded in the principle of humanity to animals. Never should they be allowed to indulge in the most remote or minute degree, and propensity to inflict unnecessary pain; rather let them be carefully instructed to commiserate the unhappy lot of such as happen to suffer beyond what it may e in their power to redress; let them be taught to turn away, with symptoms of horror, from the sight of helpless wretchedness; let their yet unpractised tongues lisp forth accents of benign compassion for the bondage which the dumb creation is subjected to; let them shudder at the bare notion of impaling the helpless, harmless cockchafer, mutilating flies, tormenting dogs, or even treading upon the inoffensive worm that crawls beneath their feet; let them early learn to respect life, and the feelings of all that live. I would not even have them consider the destruction of a spider, a beetle, or any reptile, that we often wrongfully, perhaps, deem noxious, as a matter of indifference, but as a painful necessity, which should be avoided in every possible circumstance. And above all, let infant females be thus tutored: for in them we always expect to find whatever is soft, benignant and humane; and this is the more indispensible, as it is but too often their lot through life, to appear in those situations where the exercise of the milder qualities if perpetually acceptable, and perpetually required.

It cannot for a moment be reasonably doubted that the engrafting of this habit upon the juvenile mind, would have a very sensible effect upon the moral character. The virtues that are dependent and mutually coherent, by almost imperceptible links, on the existence of humanity ,are may; for it is a principle which pervades, in one or other of is modifications, almost every action of a man. We readily acknowledge the prevailing force of habit in every other respect, nor can we make any scruple to recognize it in this; the child that is allowed to e scornful, dishonest, mendacious, indolent, or wrathful, will, as he grows up, shew all these vices in a greater amplitude, unless he be placed in such particular situations as necessarily compel him to restrain and conceal his native propensities from the fear of superior power. The child that is permitted to behave with cruelty towards animals and insects, will ever retain a certain savage ferocity of character, which, whenever, opportunities offer, will, I will venture to pronounce, be manifested equally towards men and animals. The youth who can wantonly torture a puppy, or a kitten, unless restrained only by fear of the law, or that of personal chastisement, will behave in the same manner when advanced to riper years.

It is a ridiculous mistake to suppose that cruelty is naturally inherent in human nature. I will not deny that this vicious propensity is to e found in almost every infant; but this proceeds, as I take if, from unconsciousness, or insensibility, of what produces pain: pain is an abstract idea relatively to others, but becomes personal when considered with regard to ourselves. A child that has never been burnt, will voluntarily thrust its finger into the candle or fire; but when he finds that this action produces the sensation of pain, he will ever after associated these ideas together, and will in consequence carefully avoid repeating he act. Btu he does not so soon learn to generalize his conceptions, by supposing that what gives pain to him, must likewise give paint to another; for he would immediately afterwards, if permitted, positively subject the fingers of his mother, or his nurse, to the same trial of fire. It requires frequency of percept or reflection, to establish in his mind the truism, that, generally speaking, what gives pain to himself, will, yea must, excite pain in others. IT is in fact a long time before he completely learns to transfer his own feelings to another.

And the case, perhaps, is still more cogent when applied to the animal creation. It no doubt, requires a great effort to the mind, for a child to conceive that he should behave with the same tenderness towards a kitten or a puppy, as towards his brother or sister. It would certainly be a long time before he would arrive at this truth, unaided deduction of his own intellects; and during that interval, he would be insensibly, perhaps, growing ferocious. Why is it more natural to suppose that cruelty is inherent in man, than that a propensity to lying, swearing, or thieving is? The same previous process as is employed to prevent the practice of these latter enormities, might be adopted, I cannot help thinking, with equal availability, to restrain the commission of the former. It is not the height of absurdity to draw a per contra inference, and is it not the height of moral turpitude to suffer, in consequence, such an inveterate, incorrigible habit, to gain ascendancy in our offspring, by neglecting to tincture their callow minds with the fine feelings of humanity, and the genuine sentiments of Christian philanthropy? Error is oftener propagated through negligence, than from premeditated design; I am willing candidly to hope, that the one I am now considering, may proceed from inadvertency, and I therefore harbor an expectation, that he preceding remarks may have a well-timed influence, with those who peruse them.

I cannot conclude this letter, Mr. Editor, without recalling to the minds of your readers, the following beautiful lines from our admired Cowper, who has been called to the "Poet of Christianity"

"I would not enter upon my list of friends
(Tho' grac'd with polish'd manners and fine sense
Yet wanting sensibility) the man
Who needlessly sets foot upon a worm.
An inadvertent step may crush the snail
That craws at evening in the public path;
But he that has humanity, forewarn'd,
Will tread aside, and let the reptile live.
The creeping vermin, loathsome to the sight,
And charg'd perhaps with venom, that intrudes
A visitor unwelcome, into scenes,
Sacred to neatness and repose, th' alcove,
The chamber, or refectory, may die:
A necessary act incurs no blame.
Not so, when held within their proper bounds,
And guiltless of offence, they range the air,
Or take their pastime in the spacious field;
There they are privileg'd; and he that hunts,
Or harms them there, is guilty of a wrong,
Disturbs the economy of nature's realm,
Who when she form'd, design' them an abode.
The sum is this; if man's convenience, health,
Or safety, interfere, his rights and claims
Are paramount, and must extinguish theirs:
Else they are all, the meanest things they are
As free to live, and to enjoy that life,
As God was free to form, them at the first,
Who, in his sovereign wisdom form'd them all
Ye therefore, who love mercy, teach your sons
To love it too."—COWPER

Indulging the hope that you will give admission to this my letter, I remain a well wisher to your interesting miscellany, and am, Yours, &c. July 6, 1805. DOFRUMN