NewThoughtLibrary.com / DivineLibrary.org

Exchange. The penalties here inflicted on disobedience, are as unsparing as the parties can make them. Yet such a custom as dueling is broken down by a purely moral sentiment, based on the individual conscience, struggling with and at length conquering the general consent of the community. It may be answered: Yes, but the sense of utility is with those who favor reform. Granted, but it is not, under the theory as presented in its present form, the notion of utility that imposes obligation, but the concurrent, educational force of the community, and this is fully pledged to a custom which nevertheless calls forth on the part of a few a staunch condemnation, finding at length such response in the consciences of all as to lead to the abandonment of the censured act. Now, if the question were one merely of wisdom, there would be no mystery in the formation of a new opinion, and hence in a change of action. The difficulty under the theory lies in explaining how moral obligation, which rests on an educational basis, which arises from the enforced sentiment of the many, which is the volume of sound made by a multitude of voices, can be brought to bear against an overwhelming majority, to the breaking down of those very beliefs whence it springs. How can one, two, three, outshout the crowd? How can there arise a counter-sense of duty, when this sense is simply the concurrent opinions of men, sustaining as sacred the censured institution. Duty would thus be like respectability, like popularity. They do go, and must go with the dominant party, and can not be used as an incipient force against themselves.

(2) The thief, the gambler, the speculator, rest their laws on an educated sense of honor peculiar to themselves, and while they do secure obedience, sometimes more self-sacrificing and implicit than much of that which arises under moral law, it is notoriously with little or no reference