In this uncertainty as to the basis of good and bad conduct, many appeal to “conscience” as the infallible guide.  What is conscience?  It manifestly is not a distinct faculty of the mind, and if it were, would it be more reliable than the other faculties?  It has been often said that some divine power implanted conscience in every human being.  Apart from the question of whether human beings are different in kind from other organisms, which will be discussed later, if conscience has been placed in man by a divine power, why have not all peoples been furnished with the same guide?  There is no doubt that all men of any mentality have what is called a conscience; that is, a feeling that certain things are right, and certain other things are wrong.  This conscience does not affect all the actions of life, but probably the ones which to them are the most important.  It varies, however, with the individual.  What reason has the world to believe that conscience is a correct guide to right and wrong?

The origin of conscience is easily understood.  One’s conscience is formed as his habits are formed—­by the time and place in which he lives; it grows with his teachings, his habits and beliefs.  With most people it takes on the color of the community where they live.  With some people the eating of pork would hurt their conscience; with others the eating of any meat; with some the eating of meat on Friday, and with others the playing of any game of chance for money, or the playing of any game on Sunday, or the drinking of intoxicating liquors.  Conscience is purely a matter of environment, education and temperament, and is no more infallible than any habit or belief.  Whether one should always follow his own conscience is another question, and cannot be confounded with the question as to whether conscience is an infallible guide to conduct.

Some seek to avoid the manifold difficulties of the problem by saying that a “criminal” is one who is “anti-social.”  But does this bring us nearer to the light?  An anti-social person is one whose life is hostile to the organization or the society in which he lives; one who injures the peace, contentment, prosperity or well-being of his neighbors, or the political or social organization in which his life is cast.

In this sense many of the most venerated men of history have been criminals; their lives and teachings have been in greater or lesser conflict with the doctrines, habits and beliefs of the communities where they lived.  From the nature of things the wise man and the idealist can never be contented with existing things, and their lives are a constant battle for change.  If the anti-social individual should be punished, what of many of the profiteers and captains of industry who manipulate business and property for purely selfish ends?  What of many of our great financiers who use every possible reform and conventional catch word as a means of affecting public opinion, so that they may control the resources of the earth and exploit their fellows for their own gain?