us.


4. Moral Rules need a Proof, ERGO not innate.

Another reason that makes me doubt of any innate practical principles
is, that I think THERE CANNOT ANY ONE MORAL RULE BE PROPOSED WHEREOF A
MAN MAY NOT JUSTLY DEMAND A REASON: which would be perfectly ridiculous
and absurd if they were innate; or so much as self-evident, which every
innate principle must needs be, and not need any proof to ascertain its
truth, nor want any reason to gain it approbation. He would be thought
void of common sense who asked on the one side, or on the other side
went to give a reason WHY "it is impossible for the same thing to be and
not to be." It carries its own light and evidence with it, and needs no
other proof: he that understands the terms assents to it for its own
sake or else nothing will ever be able to prevail with him to do it. But
should that most unshaken rule of morality and foundation of all social
virtue, "That should do as he would be done unto," be proposed to one
who never heard of it before, but yet is of capacity to understand its
meaning; might he not without any absurdity ask a reason why? And were
not he that proposed it bound to make out the truth and reasonableness
of it to him? Which plainly shows it not to be innate; for if it were it
could neither want nor receive any proof; but must needs (at least
as soon as heard and understood) be received and assented to as an
unquestionable truth, which a man can by no means doubt of. So that
the truth of all these moral rules plainly depends upon some other
antecedent to them, and from which they must be DEDUCED; which could not
be if either they were innate or so much as self-evident.