A. It has been at all times spoken of: most legislators pretend to adopt it as the basis of their laws; but they only quote some of its precepts, and have only vague ideas of its totality.
Q. Why.
A. Because, though simple in its basis, it forms in its developements and consequences, a complicated whole which requires an extensive knowledge of facts, joined to all the sagacity of reasoning.
Q. Does not instinct alone teach the law of nature?
A. No; for by instinct is meant nothing more than that blind sentiment by which we are actuated indiscriminately towards everything that flatters the senses.
Q. Why, then, is it said that the law of nature is engraved in the hearts of all men.
A. It is said for two reasons: first, because it has been remarked, that there are acts and sentiments common to all men, and this proceeds from their common organization; secondly, because the first philosophers believed that men were born with ideas already formed, which is now demonstrated to be erroneous.
Q. Philosophers, then, are fallible?
A. Yes, sometimes.
Q. Why so?
A. First, because they are men; secondly, because the ignorant call all those who reason, right or wrong, philosophers; thirdly, because those who reason on many subjects, and who are the first to reason on them, are liable to be deceived.
Q. If the law of nature be not written, must it not become arbitrary and ideal?
A. No: because it consists entirely in facts, the demonstration of which can be incessantly renewed to the senses, and const.i.tutes a science as accurate and precise as geometry and mathematics; and it is because the law of nature forms an exact science, that men, born ignorant and living inattentive and heedless, have had hitherto only a superficial knowledge of it.
CHAPTER III.
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE RELATING TO MAN.
Q. Explain the principles of the law of nature with relation to man.
A. They are simple; all of them are comprised in one fundamental and single precept.
Q. What is that precept?
A. It is self-preservation.
Q. Is not happiness also a precept of the law of nature?
A. Yes: but as happiness is an accidental state, resulting only from the development of man"s faculties and his social system, it is not the immediate and direct object of nature; it is in some measure, a superfluity annexed to the necessary and fundamental object of preservation.
Q. How does nature order man to preserve himself?
A. By two powerful and involuntary sensations, which it has attached, as two guides, two guardian Geniuses to all his actions: the one a sensation of pain, by which it admonishes him of, and deters him from, everything that tends to destroy him; the other, a sensation of pleasure, by which it attracts and carries him towards everything that tends to his preservation and the development of his existence.
Q. Pleasure, then, is not an evil, a sin, as casuists pretend?
A. No, only inasmuch as it tends to destroy life and health which, by the avowal of those same casuists, we derive from G.o.d himself.
Q. Is pleasure the princ.i.p.al object of our existence, as some philosophers have a.s.serted?
A. No; not more than pain; pleasure is an incitement to live as pain is a repulsion from death.
Q. How do you prove this a.s.sertion?
A. By two palpable facts: One, that pleasure, when taken immoderately, leads to destruction; for instance, a man who abuses the pleasure of eating or drinking, attacks his health, and injures his life. The other, that pain sometimes leads to self-preservation; for instance, a man who permits a mortified member to be cut off, suffers pain in order not to perish totally.
Q. But does not even this prove that our sensations can deceive us respecting the end of our preservation?
A. Yes; they can momentarily.
Q. How do our sensations deceive us?
A. In two ways: by ignorance, and by pa.s.sion.
Q. When do they deceive us by ignorance?
A. When we act without knowing the action and effect of objects on our senses: for example, when a man touches nettles without knowing their stinging quality, or when he swallows opium without knowing its soporiferous effects.
Q. When do they deceive us by pa.s.sion?
A. When, conscious of the pernicious action of objects, we abandon ourselves, nevertheless, to the impetuosity of our desires and appet.i.tes: for example, when a man who knows that wine intoxicates, does nevertheless drink it to excess.
Q. What is the result?
A. That the ignorance in which we are born, and the unbridled appet.i.tes to which we abandon ourselves, are contrary to our preservation; that, therefore, the instruction of our minds and the moderation of our pa.s.sions are two obligations, two laws, which spring directly from the first law of preservation.
Q. But being born ignorant, is not ignorance a law of nature?
A. No more than to remain in the naked and feeble state of infancy. Far from being a law of nature, ignorance is an obstacle to the practice of all its laws. It is the real original sin.
Q. Why, then, have there been moralists who have looked upon it as a virtue and perfection?
A. Because, from a strange or perverted disposition, they confounded the abuse of knowledge with knowledge itself; as if, because men abuse the power of speech, their tongues should be cut out; as if perfection and virtue consisted in the nullity, and not in the proper development of our faculties.
Q. Instruction, then, is indispensable to man"s existence?
A. Yes, so indispensable, that without it he is every instant a.s.sailed and wounded by all that surrounds him; for if he does not know the effects of fire, he burns himself; those of water he drowns himself; those of opium, he poisons himself; if, in the savage state, he does not know the wiles of animals, and the art of seizing game, he perishes through hunger; if in the social state, he does not know the course of the seasons, he can neither cultivate the ground, nor procure nourishment; and so on, of all his actions, respecting all his wants.
Q. But can man individually acquire this knowledge necessary to his existence, and to the development of his faculties?
A. No; not without the a.s.sistance of his fellow men, and by living in society.
Q. But is not society to man a state against nature?
A. No: it is on the contrary a necessity, a law that nature imposed on him by the very act of his organization; for, first, nature has so const.i.tuted man, that he cannot see his species of another s.e.x without feeling emotions and an attraction which induce him to live in a family, which is already a state of society; secondly, by endowing him with sensibility, she organized him so that the sensations of others reflect within him, and excite reciprocal sentiments of pleasure and of grief, which are attractions, and indissoluble ties of society; thirdly, and finally, the state of society, founded on the wants of man, is only a further means of fulfilling the law of preservation: and to pretend that this state is out of nature, because it is more perfect, is the same as to say, that a bitter and wild fruit of the forest, is no longer the production of nature, when rendered sweet and delicious by cultivation in our gardens.