chosen to do wrong, he is a bad man, and ought to be punished.

But the Determinist bases his method upon the philosophical theory that
Bill Sikes is what heredity and environment have made him; and that he
is not responsible for his heredity, which he did not choose, nor for
his environment, which he did not make.

Still, you may think the difference is not effectively great. But it is.
For the Christian would blame Bill Sikes, and no one but Bill Sikes.
But the Determinist would not blame Sikes at all: he would blame his
environment.

Is not that a material difference? But follow it out to its logical
results. The Christian, blaming only Bill Sikes, because he had a "free
will," would punish Sikes, and perhaps try to convert Sikes; and there
his effort would logically end.

The Determinist would say: "If this man Sikes has been reared in a slum,
has not been educated, nor morally trained, has been exposed to all
kinds of temptation, the fault is that of the social system which has
made such ignorance, and vice, and degradation possible."

That is _one_ considerable difference between the results of a good
religion and a bad one. The Christian condemns the man--who is a victim
of evil social conditions. The Determinist condemns the evil conditions.
It is the difference between the methods of sending individual sufferers
from diphtheria to the hospital and the method of condemning the drains.

But you may cynically remind me that nothing will come of the
Determinists' protest against the evil social conditions. Perhaps not.
Let us waive that question for a moment, and consider our second case.

Lord Rackrent evicts his tenants. The orthodox method is well known. It
goes no further than the denunciation of the peer, and the raising of a
subscription (generally inadequate) for the sufferers.

The Determinist method is different. The Determinist would say: "This
peer is what heredity and environment have made him. We cannot blame him
for being what he is. We can only blame his environment. There must be
something wrong with a social system which permits one idle peer to ruin
hundreds of industrious producers. This evil social system should be
amended, or evictions will continue."

That Determinist conclusion would be followed by the usual inadequate
subscription.

And now we will go back to the point we passed. You may say, in the case
of Sikes and the peer, that the logic of the Determinist is sound, but
ineff