-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ef78fa3734c4dd2017790ae87d60d485.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=M2dW0nx0k0K-eeRmfirUvhxhLomEgG5KEokSyx%7Eq7YPdowbD1iitQz73R1Ce%7EF4bamC04Y4ZkYqqQco5bjytPEJlA1mJQdBJOKlz9eD2nMUI3puE9u8VyOc5eQkuT0POqPDJA6N8IR1rBgrnAvY6VyQNivUJgb9xsf6jg2ihNm5cTgmPxg4S021cEx9aflR2MAXB6RCnBI2sQdM1nOiq282raqk6hw%7Ee3iYI86IkMQrEArhY59EaadMBzu58QOLYk--QSUGe5V5wpZ4BFfVamL88URAyuHF5KpjyYYeXdbao2VKJNcjM8njpjcxT05NxUL3%7E5BTyPjfgjtM8V8CFIw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a803955ff3ceb8b383e0cda775a61609
PDF Text
Text
/
=11 ____________________ _
___________________
■
i
i
i
i
■
■
i
i
— --------------a
i
i
No. 2
■
■
■
■
i
■
i
■
i
■
i
■
i
i
■
CHAPMAN COHEN
1
■
a
i
M
■
i
i
i
THE PIONEER PRESS
■
a
In
Pamphlets
for the People
MORALITY
1 WITHOUT
GOD
a
i
1
|
a
H
1
■
j
j
a
a
i
a
|
s
a
i
a
i
■
a
1
a
a
y
��Pamphlets
for the People
No. 2
MORALITY
WITHOUT
GOD
CHAPMAN COHEN
THE PIONEER PRESS
��Morality Without God
i.
Christianity is what is called a “revealed” religion. That
is, God himself revealed that religion to man. In other
religions man sought God—some god—and eventually
found him, or thought he did. In the case of Christianity
God sought man and revealed himself to him. The revela
tion, judging by after events, was not very well done, for
although a book made its appearance that was said to
have been dictated or inspired by God so that man might
know his will, yet ever since mankind has been in some
doubt as to what God meant when he said it. Evidently
God’s way of making himself known by a revelation is
not above criticism. There seems a want of sense in giving
man a revelation he could not understand. It is like
lecturing in Greek to an audience that understands nothing
but Dutch.
What was it God revealed to man? He did not reveal
science. The whole structure of physical science was built
up very gradually and tentatively by man. He did not
teach man geology, or astronomy, or chemistry, or biology.
He did not teach him how to overcome disease, or its
nature and cure. He did not teach him agriculture, or
how to develop a wild grass into the life nourishing wheat.
He did not teach man how to drain a marsh or how to dig
a canal so that he might carry water where it was needed.
He did not teach him arithmetic or mathematics. He
taught him none of the arts and sciences. Man had no
revelation that taught him how to build the steam engine,
or the aeroplane, or the submarine, the telegraph or the
wireless. All these and a thousand other things which we
regard as indispensable, and without which civilization
would be impossible, man had to discover for himself.
There is not a Christian parson who would to-day say that
3
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
God gave these things to man. That, perhaps, is not quite
true. Some of the clergy will say that God gave every
thing to man, inasmuch as he let him find them out. But
at any rate none of the things I have named is said to
have been revealed to man. He had to discover or invent
the lot. And in inventing them or discovering them he
behaved just as he might have behaved had he never heard
of God at all.
What was there left for God to give man? Well, it is
said, he gave man morality. He gave man the ten com
mandments. He told him he must not steal, he must not
commit murder, he must not bear false witness; he told
children they must honour their fathers and their mothers,
but somehow he forgot the very necessary lesson that
parents ought also to honour their children. He mixed up
with these things the command that people should honour
him, and he was more insistent upon that than upon any
thing else. Not to honour him was the one unforgivable
crime. But, and this is the important thing, while there
is no need for an inspired arithmetic or an inspired geo
metry, while there was no inspired chemistry or geology,
there had to be, apparently, an inspired morality, because
without God moral laws would be without authority, and
decency would disappear from human society.
Now that, put bluntly, lies behind the common state
ment that morality depends upon religious belief. It is
not always put quite so plainly as I have put it—very
absurd things are seldom put plainly—but it is put very
plainly by the man in the street and by the professional
evangelist. It is also put in another way by those people
who delight in telling us what blackguards they were till
Christ got hold of them, and it is put in expensive volumes
in which Christian writers and preachers wrap up the
statement in such a way that to the unwary it looks as
though there must be something in it, and at least it is
sufficiently unintelligible to look as though it were good
sound theological philosophy.
4
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
Is the theory inherently credible? Consider what it
means. Are we to believe that if we had never received
a revelation from God, or even if there were no belief
in God, a mother would never have learned to love her
child, men and women would never have loved each other,
men would never have placed any value upon honesty or
truthfulness, or loyalty? After all we have seen an animal
mother caring for its young, even to the extent of risking
its life for it. We have seen animals defend each other
from a common enemy, and join together in running down
prey for a common meal. There is a courting time for
animals, there is a mating time, and there is a time how
ever brief when the animal family of male, female and
young exist. All this happened to the animals without
God. Why should man have to receive a revelation before
he could reach the moral stage of the higher animal life?
Broadly, then, the assertion that morality would never
have existed for human beings without belief in a God
or without a revelation from God is equal to saying that
man alone would never have discovered the value of being
honest and truthful or loyal. He would not even have
had such terms as good and bad in his vocabulary, for
the use of those words implies a moral judgment, and
there would have been no such thing—at least, so we are
told.
I am putting the issue very plainly, because it is only
by avoiding plain speech that the Christian can “get away”
with his monstrous and foolish propositions. I am saying
in plain words what has been said by thousands upon
thousands of preachers since Paul laid down the principle
that if there was no resurrection from the dead, “let us eat
and drink for to-morrow we die”.
Sometimes the theory I have been stating is put in a
way that throws a flood of light on the orthodox conception
of morality. It is so glaringly absurd to say that without
religion man would not know right from wrong, that it
is given a very slight covering in the expression, “destroy
5
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
religion and you remove all moral restraints”. Restraints!
That expression is indeed a revelation. To the orthodox
Christian morality stands for no more than a series of
restraints, and restraints are unpleasant things, because they
prevent a man doing what he would like to do. It is acting
in defiance of one’s impulses that makes one conscious
of “restraints”. A pickpocket in a crowd is restrained by
the knowledge that there is a policeman at his elbow7. A
burglar is restrained from breaking into a house by hearing
the footsteps of a policeman. Each refrains from doing as
he would like to do because he is conscious of restraints.
It may be God; it may be a policeman. God is an un
sleeping policeman—I do not say an unbribable one,
because the amount of money given to his representatives
every year, the Churches that are built or endowed in the
hopes of “getting right with God”, totals a very con
siderable sum.
From this point of view, what are called moral rules
are treated much as one may treat the regulation that one
must not buy chocolates after a certain hour in the evening.
The order is submitted to because of the “sanctions” that
may be applied if we do not. So to the type of Christian
with whom we are dealing the question of right or wrong
is entirely one of coercion from without. If he disobeys
he may be punished, if not here, then hereafter. He asks,
“Why should a man impose restraints on himself if there
is no future life in which he is to be rewarded or punished?
Why not enjoy oneself and be done with it?” On this
view a drunkard may keep sober from Monday morning
till Friday night on the promise of a good “drunk” on
Saturday. But in the absence of this prospect he may say,
paraphrasing St. Paul, “If there be no getting drunk on
Saturday, why should we keep sober from Monday to
Friday? If there is to be no drunkenness on Saturday,
then let us get drunk while we may, for the day cometh
when there will be no getting drunk at all”.
But all this is quite wrong. The ordinary man is not
conscious of restraint when he behaves himself in a decent
6
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
manner. A mother is not conscious of restraint when she
devotes herself to nursing her sick child, or goes out to work
to supply it with food. A man who is left in the house of
a friend is not conscious of restraint when he refrains from
pocketing the silver, or when he does not steal a purse that
has been left on the mantelpiece. A person sent to the
bank to cash a cheque does not feel any restraint because
he returns with the money. The man who is conscious
of a restraint when he does a decent action is not a “good”
man at all. He is a potential criminal who does not com
mit a crime only because he is afraid of being caught. And
when he is caught the similarity of the Christian frightened
into an outward decency and the detected pickpocket with
the policeman’s hand on his shoulder is made the more
exact by the cry of, “O Lord be merciful to me a miserable
sinner”, in the one case, and “It’s a fair cop” in the
other.
The religious theory of mortality simply will not do. It
turns what is fundamentally simple into a “mystery”, and
then elevates the mystery into a foolish dogma. It talks at
large of the problem of evil, when outside theology no
such problem exists. The problem of evil is that of re
conciling the existence of wrong with that of an all-wise
and all-good God. It is the idea of God that introduces
the conundrum. The moral problem is not how does
man manage to do wrong, but how does he find out what
is right? When a boy is learning to ride a bicycle the
problem is not how to fall off, but how to keep on. We
can fall off without any practice. So with so many oppor
tunities of doing the wrong thing the moral problem is
how did man come to hit on the right one, and to make
the treading of the right road to some extent automatic?
But in the philosophy of orthodox Christianity man is a
potential criminal, kept from actual criminality only from
fear of punishment or the expectation of reward in a future
life. If the Christian teacher of morals does not actually
mean this when he says that without the belief in God no
such thing as “moral values” exists, and that if there is
7
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
no after-life where rewards and punishments follow, moral
practice would not endure, then he is more than mistaken;
he is a deliberate liar. Fortunately for the world,
Christians, lay and clerical, are better than their creed.
11.
We are back again with the old and simple issue of the
natural versus the supernatural. This is one of the oldest
divisions in human thought, and there is no logical com
promise between them. Morality either has its foundations
in the natural or in the supernatural. In asserting the first
alternative I do not mean to imply that there is a morality
in nature at large. There is not. Nature takes no more
heed of our moral rules and judgments than it does of
our tastes in art or literature. A man is not blessed with
good health because he is an example of a lofty morality,
nor is he burdened with disease because he is a criminal
in thought and act. Nature is neither moral nor immoral.
Such terms are applicable only when there is conscious
action to a given end. Nature is amoral, that is, it is with
out morality. The common saying that nature “punishes”
us or “rewards” us for this or that is merely a picturesque
way of stating certain things; it has no literal relation to
actual fact. In nature there are no rewards or punishments,
there are only actions and consequences. We benefit if we
act in one way; we suffer if we act in another. That is
the natural fact; there is no ethical quality in natural
happenings. Laws of morals are human creations; they
are on all fours with “laws” of science—that is, they are
generalizations from experience.
So morality existed in fact long before it was defined
or described in theory. Man did not first discover the
laws of physiology in order to realize the need for eating
or breathing, to digest food or to inhale oxygen. Nor did
the rules, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, etc.,
first make stealing and killing wrong. A moral law makes
8
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
explicit in theory what is implicit in fact. The fact creates
the rule; it is not the rule that creates the fact.
Non-recognition of this simple truth is mainly respon
sible for the rubbish that is served up by so many teachers
of ethics, and also for the unintelligent attack on ethics
by those who, because they are, often enough, dissatisfied
with existing standards of moral values, feel justified in
denouncing moral values altogether. As we shall see
later, moral rules stand to human society pretty well as
laws of physiology do to the individual organism. They
constitute the physiology of social life, with the distinction
that whatever rules we have must be modified in form
from time to time to meet changing circumstances.
Let us feel our way gradually, and in as simple a manner
as possible. We begin with the meaning of two words,
“good” and “bad”. What is their significance? There
are many religious writers and many of those who aim
at founding a religion of ethics—as though the association
of religion with moral teaching had not already done
sufficient harm in the world-—who speak of certain actions
as being good in themselves, and who profess a worship
of the “Good” as though it were a substitute for “God”.
There are others who puff themselves out with a particu
larly foolish passage from Tennyson that to follow right
because it’s right “were wisdom in the scorn of conse
quence”, and there is a very misleading sentence cited from
the philosopher, Immanuel Kant, expressing his “awe” at
man’s moral sense. We should always be on our guard
when the sayings of great men become very popular. It
is long odds that they embody something that it not very
wise, or that its wisdom has been lost in the popularization.
It should be very obvious that it is the height of stupidity
to do things in “scorn of consequence”, since it is the
consequences of actions that give them their quality of
goodness or badness. If getting drunk made people happ;er,
better, and wiser, would anyone consider drunkenness a
bad thing? In such circumstances the moral rule would
be “Blessed is he that gets drunk”, and the more drunken
9
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
he was, the better the man. If we can picture any actions
that are without consequences, they would not come within
the scope of morals at all.
The first point to remember is that there is no such
thing as good in the abstract. A thing is good in relation
to its consequences, or as it realizes the end at which we
are aiming. Tennyson was talking nonsense. These ethical
and religious philosophers who “blather” about the
“reality” of good in itself, are talking nonsense. It is not
possible to do right in scorn of consequences because it
is the consequences that make the action either good or
bad. It may be unpleasant or dangerous to do what is
right, and we admire the one who does right in such cir
cumstances, but this does not affect our standard of value.
It must also be remembered when we are seeking a
natural basis for morals, that—if the teleological language
may be permitted—nature requires but one thing of all
living creatures. This is efficiency. The “moral” quality
of this efficiency does not matter in the least. A Church
without a lightning conductor is at a disadvantage with a
brothel that possesses one. A man who risks his life in a
good cause has, other things equal, no advantage over a
man who risks his life in a bad one. Leave on one side
this matter of efficiency and there is not the slightest
attention paid to anything that we consider morally worthy
in the organism that survives.
Finally, efficiency in the case of living beings is to be
expressed in terms of adaption to environment, a fish to
water, an air-breathing animal to land, a carnivorous
animal to its capacity to stalk its prey, a vegetable feeder
to qualities that enable it to escape the attack of the
carnivora, and so forth. An animal survives as it is able
to adapt itself, or as it becomes adapted to its environment.
It is well to bear in mind this principle of efficiency,
because while what constitutes efficiency varies from time
to time, the fact of its being the main condition determining
survival remains true whether we are dealing with organic
structure or with mental life.
10
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
Now if we take ethical terminology, it is plain that the
language used implies a relation, and one of a very definite
kind. The part of the environment to which these terms
are related is that of other and like individuals. Kindness,
truthfulness, justice, mercy, honesty, etc., all imply this.
A man by himself—if we can picture such a thing—could
not be kind; there would be no one to whom to be kind.
He could not be truthful; there would be none to whom
he could tell a lie. He could not be honest, or generous,
or loyal; there would be none to whom these qualities
would have any application. Every moral quality implies
the existence of a group of which an individual is a
member. And as the group enlarges so moral qualities
take on a wider application. But this cardinal fact, that
ethical qualities, whether they be good or bad, have no
significance apart from group life, remains constant
throughout.
Now let us revert to man as a theoretically solitary
animal, a condition that has nowhere existed, for the
sociality of man is only a stage in advance of the gre
gariousness of the animal world from which man has
descended. But as an animal he must develop certain
habits and tastes in order to merely exist. Somehow man
must usually avoid doing things that threaten his existence.
Even in matters of food he must develop a taste for things
which preserve life and a distaste for things that destroy it;
and, as a matter of fact, there are a number of capacities
developed in the body that automatically offer protection
in the case of food against things that are too injurious to
life. But it is quite obvious that if a man developed a
taste for prussic acid, such a taste would not become
hereditary.
Human life, in line with animal life in general, has to
develop not merely a dislike for such things as threaten
life, but also a liking for their opposite. The development
of this last capacity means that in the long run the actions
which promote pleasure, and those which preserve life,
roughly coincide. This is the foundation and the evolu
11
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
tionary basis of the theory of Utilitarianism, or one may
say, of Neo-utilitarianism.
But man never does exist as an individual only, one
that is fighting for his own hand, and whose thoughts
and tendencies are consciously or unconsciously concerned
only with his own welfare. Man is always a member of
a group, and the mere fact of living with others imposes
on the individual a kind of discipline that gives a definite
direction to the character of his development. The law of
life is, that to live an organism must be adapted to its
environment, and the important part of the environment
here is that formed by one’s fellow-beings. The adaption
need not be perfect, any more than that the food one eats
need be of the most nutritious kind. But just as the food
eaten must contain enough nutrition to maintain life, so
conduct must be such as to maintain some kind of harmony
between an individual and the rest of the group to which
he belongs. If an individual’s nature is such that he will
not or cannot adapt himself to his fellows then he is, in
one stage of civilization, killed off, and in another he is
subjected to pains and penalties, and various kinds of
restraints that keep his anti-social tendencies in check.
There is a selective process in all societies, and even more
rigid in low societies than in the higher ones, in which
those ill-adapted to the common life of the group are
placed at a disadvantage even in procreating their kind.
And side by side with this process of selection within
the group there is going on another eliminative process
on a larger scale in the contest of group with group. A
group in which the members show little signs of a com
mon action, of loyalty to each other, is most likely to be
subjugated, or wiped out and replaced by a group in which
the cohesion is greater and the subordination of purely
individualistic tendencies to the welfare of the whole is
greater.
The nature of the process by which man becomes a
moral animal is therefore given when we say that man
12
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
is a social animal. Social life is in itself a kind of disci
pline, a training which fits a man to work with his fellows,
to live with them, and to their mutual advantage. There
are rules of the social game which the individual must
observe if he is to live as a member of the tribe. Man is
not usually conscious of the discipline he is undergoing,
but neither is any animal conscious of the process of the
forces which adapt it to its environment. The moralizing
of man is never a conscious process, but it is a recognizable
process none the less.
It may also be noted that the rules of this social game
are enforced with greater strictness in primitive societies
than is the case with later ones. It is quite a mistake to
think of the life of savages as free, and that of civilized
man as being bound down by social and legal rules. Quite
the opposite is the case. The life of uncivilized man is
bound by customs, by taboos, that leave room for but
little initiative, and which to a civilized man would be
intolerable.
But from the earliest times there is always going on a
discipline that tends to eliminate the ill-adapted to social
life. Real participation in social life means more than an
abstention from injurious acts, it involves a positive con
tribution to the life of the whole. A type of behaviour
that is not in harmony with the general social characteristics
of the groups sets up an irritation much as a foreign sub
stance does when introduced into the tissues of an organ
ism. Thus we have on the one hand, a discipline that
forces conformity with the social structure, and on the
other hand a revolutionary tendency making for further
improvement.
There are still other factors that have to be noted if we
are properly to appreciate the forces that go to mould
character and to establish a settled moral code. To a
growing extent the environment to which the human being
has to adapt himself is one of ideas and ideals. There
are certain ideals of truthfulness, loyalty, obedience, kind
13
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
ness, etc., which surround one from the very moment of
birth. The society which gives him the language he speaks
and the stored-up knowledge it possesses, also provides
him with ideals by which he is more or less compelled to
guide his life.
There are endless differences in the form of these social
ideals, but they are of the same mental texture, from the
taboo of the savage to the “old school tie”.
The last phase of this moral adaption is that which
takes place between groups. From the limited family
group to which moral obligations are due, we advance to
the tribe, from thence to the group of tribes that constitute
the nation, and then to a stage into which we are now
entering that of the relations between nations, a state
wherein, in its complete form, there is an extension of
moral duties to the whole of humanity.
But wherever and whenever we take it, the substance
of morality is that of an adaption of feelings and ideas
to the human group, and to the animal group so far as
they can be said to enter into some form of relationship
with us. There is no alteration in the fundamental
character of morality. Its keynote is always, as I have
said, efficiency, but it is an efficiency, the nature of which
is determined by the relations existing between groups of
human beings.
If what has been said is rightly apprehended, it will be
understood what is meant by saying that moral laws are
to the social group exactly what laws of physiology are
to the individual organism. There is nothing to cause
wonder or mystification about moral laws; they express
the physiology of social life. It is these laws that are
manifested in practice long before they are expressed in
set terms. Human conduct, whether expressed in life or
formulated in “laws”, represents the conditions that make
social life possible and profitable. It is this recognition
that forms the science of morality; and the creation of
conditions that favour the performance of desirable actions
14
�MORALITY WITHOUT COD
and the development of desirable feelings constitutes the
art of morality.
Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere,
nature creates very little that is absolutely new. It works
up again what already exists. That is the path of all
evolution. Feelings of right and wrong are gradually ex
panded from the group to the tribe, from the tribe to
the nation, and from the nation to the whole of human
society. The human environment to which man has to
adapt himself becomes ever wider. “My neighbour’’ ceases
to express itself in relation to those immediately surround
ing me, begins to extend to all with whom I have any rela
tions whatsoever. It is that stage we are now entering,
and much of the struggle going on in the world is due
to the attempts to adapt the feeling already there to its
wider environment. The world is in the pangs of child
birth. Whether civilization will survive those pangs remains
to be seen, but the nature of the process is unmistakable
to those who understand the past, and are able to apply its
lessons to the present and the future.
There is, then, nothing mysterious about the fact of
morality. There is no more need for supernaturalism here
than there is room for it in any of the arts and sciences.
Morality is a natural fact; it is not created by the formula
tion of “laws”; these only express its existence and our
sense of its value. The moral feeling creates the moral
law; not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do
with God; it has nothing to do with a future life. Its
sphere of application and operation is in this world; its
authority is derived from the common sense of mankind
and is born of the necessities of corporate life. In this
matter, as in others, man is thrown back upon himself
and if the process of development is a slow one there is
the comforting reflection that the growth of knowledge
and of understanding has placed within our reach the
power to make human life a far greater and better thing.
If we will! !
Printed by G. T. Wray Ltd. (T.U.), 332 Goswell Road, London, E.C.l,
and Published by G. W. Foote and Company Ltd.,
103 Borough High Street, London, S.E.l.
����
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Morality without God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cohen, Chapman [1868-1954]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Series title: Pamphlets for the People
Series number: No. 2
Notes: Printed by G.T. Wray Ltd., London; published by G.W. Foote and Company Ltd. Tentative date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1910?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N160
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Ethics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Morality without God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Moral values
Morality
NSS