St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-26
BASIS OF CONDUCT.
Rev. DR.. Smiths Discourse
at the Peoples Church
Yesterday.
He Explains Why We Behave
Ourselves So Well as
We Do.
Conscience Is the Self-Acting
Moral Mechanism in
Man.
Thus the Impulse Of Right
Is the Undercurrent of
Every Soul.

service III the morning at the GTanu
opera house. The theme selected by
Rev. DR.. Smith for his discourse was:
''Why Do We Behave Ourselves"
based on the text: SIN those days there
was no king in Israel, but every man
did that which was right III his own
eyes"
DR.. Smiths remarks were substan-
TALLY as follows:
The darkness between Joshua and
the kings was only Illuminated by the
halo about the heads of few barbaric
heroes. There was neither king nor
settled constitution, nor recognized law.
every man did that which was right
in his own eyes," We may not doubt
that there was some rough sort of JUS
tice, as there always is where men OF
any sort congregate. Special crime
would rouse special vengeance. Lynch
law always remains, usually as danger
Gus as it is violent, but
A WELL WELDED CLUB
in the hands of blind man makes
circle of quiet about him.
The sentiment of inward rule in the
midst of outward diSoSder, indicated by
the words. ''eyery man did that which
was right in his own eyes," is as valua-
BILE for our purpose this morning as is
the guard of soldiers about monarch.
1t demonstrates the inviolable sauctity
of man as moral person. 1t reveals a
rule of right amid the wreck of law.
Upon the eyes of those escaped slaves,
ignorant and brutal, there shOne holy
light, clearly recognizable; and, in the
absence of all other guidance, that light
was followed.
This leads us to the question of this
hour: What is the basis of conduct?
| do not seek so much to find out what
would be an ideal basis, but rather why
is it that we behave so well as we do?
| suppose that almost every one of us
knows that it would be possible for us
to be far worse than we are. Why have
we not sunk to such depths as we see?
There are many individual reasons
that may be given. One remembers the
counsels of his mother, and loyalty and
reverence keeps him steady. Another
has wife and children, and their love is his
bond to goodness. Another still has his
business ambitions, and these check him.
A fourth wishes the good opinion of his
associates. A fifth has decided that on
the whole his steady-going comfort is
not consistent with too much laXity. A
sixth is Influenced by belief in future
rewards and punishmentS. Another
behaves himself because on the whole
he prefers right doing to wrong doing.
Other reasons may suggest them
selves, but these are probably the chief
restraints that would be named as moral
influences among men. l have now to
say that these are of comparatively little
value in setting the real basis of con-
duct. In the old debates over free will,
it was wont to be urged that however
free we may be, we choose according to
motives. These motives therefore car
ence. But all this is mere surface talk
when we come to ask why certain mo-
tives have power over us rather than
other motives. The analysis vaniShes
in our structure. and we are thus in
fluenced, because we are spiritually and
built to be influenced.
We may make broader classification
of moral force which brings us into the
realm of recognized ethical theory. The
first moral force that we name is public
opinion. Men are kept in the bounds
of propriety by the pervadingexpecta-
ton that they will do so; by the GER
tainty that they will lose the esteem of
their fellows if they fail. But this an
sWer suggests much deeper question:
How was it that public opinion got an
impulse in favor of good conduct? Who
made the first happy discovery that he
could influence his fellows by simply
EXPECTING THEM TO BE DECENT?
How is it that men have not agreed to
repudiate the nonsense that they are to
be manacled by such chains as are made
of mere words and sentiments? When
these questions are well answered and
public opinion finds itself forced to give
an account of its own origin, | then
but, think, very undeniabIe state
ment, namely: The average of SEN
timent in any community is always bet
ter than the practice of that community.
Men in legislatures will with solemn
faces vote for laws that they expect to
break. Men will condemn what they
themselves do, Men would shrink with
horror from making legal the practices
of which they themselves are guilty.
How is it, therefore, that there is no true
relation between sentiment and action?
Why do men think better than they
act?
An analysis of the effect of the rela-
tionships of life brings no relief. We
wander, like Noah's dove, without
resting place, over troubled waters.
Father, mother, home, do indeed act
powerfully upon many lives for
their good. But why? 1t cannot all be
resolved into the outward harmOnies;
for many man at thought of these
never takes counsel of prudence; never
asks if this or that wrong would be
found out; the mere spiritual vision of
the loved one stimulates and strengthens,
as in the old Latin poem the appari
ton of his goddess mother did
Eneas. No, the question becomes,
what is the ground for the power of
relationship? Why is it better to choose
the influence of mother or sister instead
of the dark thoughts within, OF the
darker broods of evil? When this is
answered, why is it that one will some
times feel that he sets his foot on the
neck of Apollyon, when he hates father
and mother for the sake OF higher
good? This explanation also shrivels
at our touch. Well, what about institu-
tons, customs, laws, jailS, as the guard
ians of our morals? But upon what do
these rest? If awkward for us, why
have them? How did the world happen
to use jails as it does? Why are not the
pure and merciful the proper heirs of
dungeons, instead of the vile and the
hateful? The answer may be made that
the criminal is the injurious, and society
seeks its safety in its guarantees of
order. This brings us to the final castle
of the secular explanation of moral
phenomena.
We are told that advantage to the in
dividual and to society is the measure
of the good. Utility is the universal
standard. The good is the useful. Any
theory to be true must explain the facts
which have been observed. If it can not
do this it dies. How is it true that ad-
vantage is the basis of all decision? 1t
can not be, for this annihilates self
sacrifice as real element in the moral
order. The highest and best moments
of individuals and nations come when
they dare defy reason, experience, his
tory, the law of probabilities and every
guidance save that deepest, divinest
raacop which c,,ripOc CnnptonpOuC in