Article #37 - Should Moral Subjects be Presented?

           Ought moral subjects to be introduced into the Lyceum or would it better promote its interest & purposes to confine its attention altogether to those of a scientifick [sic] nature?

            This question has elicited some controversy for the last few meetings and although in my

own opinion the question has been satisfactorily answered in the affirmative – that subjects of a moral nature ought to be introduced – yet deeming further remarks upon the question not inappropriate I will offer a few suggestions upon it. It will be necessary in order to decide this question to understand what are the duties & purposes of all such associations. Channing says:

those associations are good which communicate power moral & intellectual action & the capacity

of usefull [sic] efforts to the persons who form them or to the persons upon whom they act. On the other hand those which in any degree impair or repress the free full action of men’s powers

or such as are designed or adapted to depress the human intellect to make it dependent & servile to keep it where it is to give it a limited amount of knowledge but not to give impulse and onward motion to men’s thought should ever be regarded as among the foes and obstructions to the best interests of society. Let us examine for a moment what would be the tendency of confining the powers of all such associations to purely scientifick subjects & excluding all those of a moral character. Would the results be in agreement with the purposes of societies as set forth above.

Or would it not rather convert all the associations of our country into a powerful engine for the

depression of the mental powers especially upon all moral questions which are by far the most important? Would it not crush that free individual action that “self determining power” which alone makes man an accountable being? Would it not debase to a dependent and servile thing the mind which in the language of the author above quoted inspired of God with reason & conscience & capable through these endowments, of progress in truth & duty is a thing more sacred than temples or associations made with human hands or even this outward universe. And what are the arguments used by those who favor the proposition limiting the energies of the association by confining them to certain subjects setting up standards to which all shall conform instead of allowing them to follow the convictions of duty within their own souls. I ask what are the arguments for these proscriptions – the most important – in fact the only one which has been presented here is that the introduction of moral subjects may excite the minds of some who come here with deeply rooted and immoveable predudices [sic]! And is this the best reason? Have the days of St. Dominick & Torquemada returned – those cruel monsters – those leaders of the

inquisition who tortured men without mercy for honest differences of opinion. Have we again I say fallen upon those times when men are no longer allowed empire in their own breasts when this privilege is to be plucked from them by predudice & bigotry? It certainly is a sign of weakness in any one who enchains the energies of his soul & suppress his intellectual activity

by yielding implicit obedience to the will of a superior intellect or even of a mechanical imitation of the virtues of great & wise men without first giving them that consideration & investigation

that his own powers may dictate but to what[??] depths of imbecility does it degrade the

individual who permits himself to be guided in all his actions by the bigotry & educational bias

of men utterly destitu[t]e of the teachings of reason – men who never used argument men without

any fixed principles except as moulded by unrestrained passion & hatred – men who always

wandered through the dark & intricate mazes of ignorance & error – twin sisters by birth – where the beauty & loveliness of truth never shone upon them. Yet we are asked to paralyze our

powers by following the footsteps of such men. What if the predudices of such individuals are

excited? The interests of no association can lose any thing by it. For those who cannot pursue

truth throughout the whole of her wide & varied field but at times betake themselves to the paths of ignorance she in turn will disclaim them altogether and where truth is not nothing advantage[ou]s can come. While there is nothing lost by permitting all subjects to be discussed there is much gained by it especially those of a moral character. For all that may be gained as far as regards the development of the mind by the mathematical sciences may also by moral science – for it is a science founded upon as fixed principles & demonstrably in all its bearings as any other. For says Horace Mann Physical science addresses itself to the noble  faculty of causality and the kindred members of its group including the mathematical powers; but ethical science addresses itself both to causality and conscientiousness & seeks also the sacred alters [sic] of veneration for what it teaches. All education without morality for its guidance must ever be unavailing in its efforts to restore man to the paths of those virtues without which there is no home no domestick [sic] sanctuary without which there may be children but the sacred institutions of the family are gone. Great intellectual knowledge can no more give the mind power to comprehend the various duties & obligations of life than physical strength can confer upon man knowledge  of the sciences. They belong to entirely a different set of faculties & require separate training. Where did our greatest statesman say that education without moral training is a national curse. It confers upon its posses[s]or great power without teaching the proper direction

in which this power should be exerted. The greatest intellectual giant only possesses  so much the more power to become wicked & tyrannical – thus we have ever found just such men the greatest oppressors of the human race. Little is to be feared from an ignorant bad man compared with the intelligent bad man. The former may be the instrument in the hands of the latter to committ [sic] the most shocking barbarities while he projects them. Like Napoleon standing at the head of a great nation he may propose the most extensive & the most ingeniously conceived field of slaughter of depradation & riot and command others to execute them yet he is the truly guilty one & cannot shield himself from censure although mantled in the cloak of fame.

[A supplemental page follows, with more on the same theme: tyrants fear free discussion and prefer “torpid stupidity.”]