Page:An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding - Locke (1690).djvu/35

RV 19 (Chap III.) Chastity? Or, where is that universal Consent, that assures us there are such inbred Rules? Murders in Duels, when Fashion has made them honourable, are committed without remorse of Conscience: Nay, in many Places, Innocence in this Case is the greatest Ignominy. And if we will look abroad, to take a view of Men, as they are, we shall find, that they have a remorse, in one Place, for doing or omitting that, which others, in another Place, think they merit by.

§. 10. He that will carefully peruse the History of Mankind, and look abroad into the several Tribes of Men, and with indifferency survey their Actions, will be able to satisfie himself, That there is scarce that Principle of Morality to be named, or Rule of Vertue to be thought on (those only excepted, that are absolutely necessary to hold Society together, which commonly too are neglected betwixt distinct Societies) which is not, somewhere or other, slighted and condemned by the general Fashion of whole Societies of Men, governed by practical Opinions, and Rules of living quite opposite to others.

§. 11. Here, perhaps, 'twill be objected, that it is no Argument, that the Rule is not known, because it is broken. I grant the Objection good, where Men, though they transgress, yet disown not the Law; where fear of Shame, Censure, or Punishment, carries the Mark of some awe it has upon them. But it is impossible to conceive, that a whole Nation of Men should all publickly reject and renounce, what every one of them, certainly and infallibly, knew to be a Law: For so they must, who have it naturally imprinted on their Minds. 'Tis possible, Men may sometimes own Rules of Morality, which, in their private Thoughts, they do not believe to be true, only to keep themselves in Reputation, and Esteem amongst those, who are perswaded of their Obligation. But 'tis not to be imagin'd, That a whole Society of Men, should, publickly and professedly, disown, and cast off a Rule, which they could not, in their own Minds, but be infallibly certain, was a Law; nor be ignorant, That all Men, they should have to do with, knew it to be such: And therefore must every one of them apprehend from others, all the Contempt and Abhorrence due to one, who professes himself void of Humanity; and one, who confounding the known and natural measures of Right and Wrong, cannot but be look'd on, as the professed Enemy of their Peace and Happiness. Whatever practical Principle is innate, cannot but be known to every one, to be just and good. It is therefore little less than a contradiction, to suppose, That whole Nations of Men should both in their Professions, and Practice unanimously and universally give the Lye to, what, by the most invincible Evidence, every one of them knew to be true, right, and good. This is enough to satisfie us, That no practical Rule, which is any where universally, and with publick Approbation, or Allowance, transgressed, can be supposed innate. But I have something farther to add, in Answer to this Objection.

§. 12. The breaking of a Rule, say you, is no Argument, that it is unknown. I grant it: But the generally allowed breach of it any where, I say, is a Proof, that it is not innate. For Example, Let us take any of these Rules; which being the most obvious deductions of Humane Reason, and conformable to the natural Inclination of the greatest part of Men, fewest People have had the Impudence to deny, or Inconsideration to doubt of. If any can be thought to be naturally imprinted, none, I think, can have a fairer Pretence to be innate, than this; Parents preserve and cherish your Children. When therefore you say, That this is an innate Rule, What do you mean? Either, that it is an innate Principle; which upon all Oc-