The Ethics of Opvnion. 259 
proves that in the former, an analogous relation indisputably 
obtains, though in some cases it may be more difficult to 
measure or apprehend ; but can any good reason be given 
why the ratio may not be absolutely identical in every 
instance ? 
But is it quite right of “A.K.H.B.” to say next, “There is a 
“difficulty, here of course. I find difficulties now in most: 
“things,” * and offer no solution. He here quite naively 
leads us into “a difficulty ” as he himself calls it; such a 
difficulty as to induce him to express strongly a principle at 
direct variance with the whole tenor of his essay, and then 
leaves us there, without offering so much as a word to help 
us out. Is this philosophical ? 
Wey did it serve the man right? In the very words put 
by “A.K.H.B.” into the mouth of society, the question of 
the propriety of blame is tacitly yielded ; and why? Clearly 
because the man’s thought and act concurring, it could not 
be contested that what is stated to have been his BELIEF, 
was sincere. The man may have been, and probably was, 
insane, but incontestably he was conscientious, and therefore 
blameless. ‘“ A.K.H.B.” himself refrains from asserting his 
culpability, but he refrains also from explaiming why. 
Yet he says that hanging him “unquestionably SERVED 
“HIM right.” This again he leaves unexplained, and the 
next paragraph is devoted simply to magnifying the difficulty. 
First, he proceeds to say that doubtless it is so desirable Gn 
his opinion) to prevent certain opinions of the Mormons from 
being generally accepted, that it is well to CRUSH them by 
the readiest means within reach. ‘Then perhaps anticipating 
a natural suggestion of stakes and faggots, he tantalises and 
perplexes us by saying, “ On the other side books have been 
“burnt_by the hangman because they set out opinions which 
“all intelligent people now accept as true and right.” + Can 
he state that those people who caused the books to be burnt 
were LESS intelligent than “all intelligent people now,” or 
their principles less “true and right” than his own? What 
has made those opinions since appear true and right, but the 
accumulated experience, matured judgment, and scientific 
_ knowledge, of succeeding generations? And what guarantee 
have we that posterity may not similarly discard as im- 
moral the opinions of those now designated “all intelligent 
people ?”’ + 
* Longmans, p. 319. + Ibid, p. 39. t Lbid, p. 319. 
