From G. H. Darwin [3–9 March 1871]1
p 2 Have you taken out the pointer dog becos I dont thk it is quite a good instance—2 the social instinct is always present, but a dog only wishes to point when his instinct is definitely called into action— I thk this can only be argued on its own merits the analogy misleads— It seems to me our saying a pointer dog ought to point proves nothing— we merely mean that we expect & desire it to happen— Both pointing & chasing a hair do seem to me temporary instincts—only that one usually does conquer another Of course you must not have a trained dog or else dog morality comes into play entirely apart from temporary or permanent instincts.
I don’t agree with yr P.S. As far as I can enter into the feelings of an untrained pointer when he reflected over his conduct I don’t see why he shd. feel shame— It is usually stronger instinct was conquered: that is all3
1st letter p 8 compare to 2nd. letter p 2 In the 1st letter Uncle H gives love of approbation as motive in the 2nd. letter by love4
1st letter p 10— Uncle Hensleigh supposes you to think that the difference is in recalling 2 kinds of past instincts whereas you mean the difference is between a past & present instinct—5
p 3 2nd. letter— I don’t see what this has to do with it— you never say that the moral feelings do arise out of a balance of gratifications & uneasinesses.6
p 4 2nd. letter— I don’t see that a moral God does arise out of yr. premises7
I cant see that love accts for social instinct unless you strain the word to a new meaning—for it is felt to people you do not love
The Question is does the disobeying an instinct in some particular instance give more pain if this instinct is always present than the disobeying another which is only exists when called into action on particular occasions— Does the continual existence make the memory of a past breach more painful
Comments on points made in Hensleigh Wedgwood’s letter  on moral sense in Descent.