from observation of the fact that the
taboos were disregarded by those men without evil effects. In any case
it was the acceptance of better ideas by the people that led to the
revolutionary movement.

+630+. _Role of taboo in the history of religion._ The relation of taboo
to morality and religion and to the general organization of society
appears from the facts stated above. It has created neither the sense of
obligation nor the determination of what is right or wrong in conduct.
The sense of obligation is coeval with human society--man, at the moment
when he became man, was already potentially a moral being (and a
religious being as well).[1048] His experience of life induced rules of
conduct, and these, with the concurrence of some hardly definable
instincts, became imperative for him--the conception involved in the
word 'ought' gradually took shape. The practical content of the
conception was determined by all sorts of experience; the decisive
consideration was whether or not a given thing was advantageous. The
belief arose that certain disadvantageous things were to be referred to
extrahuman influences, and such things were of course to be
avoided--this belief produced the taboo system.

+631+. The prohibitions of morality sprang from social relations with
human beings, the prohibitions of taboo from social relations with
superhuman beings--duties to both classes of beings were defined by
experience. The rule "thou shalt not kill thy clansman" was a necessity
of human society; the rule "thou shalt not touch a corpse" sprang from
the fear of a superhuman, malign, death-dealing Power. Avoidance of
poisonous herbs was an obligation founded on common experience;
avoidance of a chief's food and certain other foods arose from dread of
offending a spirit or some occult Power. And so with all taboo
prescriptions as contrasted with others relating to conduct.[1049]

+632+. Taboo is in essence religious, not moral. In so far as it
supplies a supernatural sanction for moral conduct proper and maintains
rational social relations (as when a man's wife and other property are
made taboo to all but himself), it is often beneficent. On the other
hand, it is antimoral when it elevates to the rank of duties actions
that have no basis in human relations or are in any way antagonistic to
a healthy human instinct of right. This it has often done, and there has
accordingly resulted a conflict between it and morality--a conflict that