even dangerous. But it seems a strange doctrine that it is, on the
whole, safer not to think, but rather to drift on the stream of public
opinion. In other fields we are not inclined to believe that the
ignorant man, who has given no especial attention to a subject, is the
one likely to be right. Why should it be so in morals?

That the youth who goes to college to seek a liberal education has a
need of ethical studies becomes very plain when we come to a
realization of the curious limitations of his ethical training as
picked up from his previous experience of the world. He has some very
definite notions as to right and wrong. He is as ready to maintain the
desirability of benevolence, justice, and veracity, as was Bishop
Butler, who wrote the famous "Analogy "; although, to be sure, he is
most inarticulate when called upon to explain what constitutes
benevolence, justice, or veracity. But the strangest thing is, that he
seems to place some of the most important decisions of his whole life
quite outside the realm of right and wrong.

He may admit that a man should not undertake to be a clergyman, unless
he possesses certain qualifications of mind and character which
evidently qualify him for that profession. But he does not see why he
has not the right to become a wearisome professor or an incompetent
physician, if he chooses to enter upon such a career. Is a man not
free to take up what profession he pleases? He must take the risk, of
course; but if he fails, he fails.

And when he is asked to consider from the point of view of ethics the
question of marriage and its responsibilities, he is at first inclined
to consider the whole subject as rather a matter for jest. Has a man
not the right to marry or remain single exactly as he pleases? And is