Well. The sportsman will kill, because he is a sportsman: the humanitarian will not kill, because he is a humanitarian. And what makes one man a sportsman and another a humanitarian? Heredity and environment: temperament and training. One man is merciful, another cruel, by nature; or one is thoughtful and the other thoughtless, by nature. That is a difference of heredity. One may have been taught all his life that to kill wild things is "sport"; the other may have been taught that it is inhuman and wrong: that is a difference of environment. Now, the man by nature cruel or thoughtless, who has been trained to think of killing animals as sport, becomes what we call a sportsman, because heredity and environment have made him a sportsman. The other man's heredity and environment have made him a humanitarian. The sportsman kills the rabbit, because he is a sportsman, and he is a sportsman because heredity and environment have made him one. That is to say the "free will" is really controlled by heredity and environment. Allow me to give a case in point. A man who had never done any fishing was taken out by a fisherman. He liked the sport, and for some months followed it eagerly. But one day an accident brought home to his mind the cruelty of catching fish with a hook, and he instantly laid down his rod, and never fished again. Before the change he was always eager to go fishing if invited: after the change he could not be persuaded to touch a line. His will was free all the while. How was it that his will to fish changed to his will not to fish? It was the result of environment. He had learnt that fishing was cruel. This knowledge controlled his will. But, it may be asked, how do you account for a man doing the thing he does not wish to do? No man ever did a thing he did not wish to do. When there are two wishes the stronger rules. Let us suppose a case. A young woman gets two letters by the same post; one is an invitation to go with her lover to a concert, the other is a request that she will visit a sick child in the slums. The girl is very fond of music, and is rather afraid of the slums. She wishes to go to the concert, and to be with her lover; she dreads the foul street and the dirty home, and shrinks from the risk of measles or fever. But she goes to the sick child, and she foregoes the concert. Why? Because her sense of duty is stronger than her self-love. Now, her sense of duty is partly due to her nature--that is, to her heredity--but it is chiefly due to environment. Like all of us, this girl was born without any kind of knowledge, and with only the rudiments of a conscience. But she has been well taught, and the teaching is part of her environment. We may say that the girl is free to act as she chooses, but she _does_ act as she has been _taught_ that she _ought_ to act. This teaching, which is part of her environment, controls her will.