SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 41 



sibility and opens the way for wholesale wrong 

 doing. It is said that if a man is born with 

 moral and virtuous tendencies no credit is due 

 him for his noble conduct; if born with vicious 

 or criminal tendencies, he should not be held re- 

 sponsible if he commits crime, and, therefore, 

 that it is dangerous to recognize heredity at all. 

 Certainly there is danger of placing too little or 

 too much stress upon the factor of heredity in 

 judging* the conduct of a man; but this is equally 

 true of all other factors. We can not tell how 

 little or how much of a man's morality is due 

 to good or evil home influences, how much of 

 his success is due to college training or the want 

 of it; yet we do not think of denying the poten- 

 tiality of these factors simply because they are 

 an unknown quantity. Now, it is quite as irra- 

 tional to deny the influences of heredity as to 

 deny the influences of the home and the school. 

 Heredity is a fact. Men are born with ever 

 varying intellectual, social, esthetic and moral 

 tendencies; therefore, we must recognize these 

 natural differences if we would be rational in our 

 philosophy, or even approach justice in our judg- 

 ment. 



Men vary in their innate sense of moral re- 

 sponsibility, just as they do in their talent fo r R es ons it>ilit 

 business, mechanics, science or art. All men, Varies, 

 generally speaking, may learn business, mechanics 

 or art, yet some learn muck more readily and 

 with much more proficiency than others. In like 

 manner all men are morally responsible for their 

 conduct, but not equally so. 



Man's ability to do right seemingly depends 



