But if the deliverances of different men’s consciences conflict, how shall we know which to trust?  If any particular command of the inner voice may be morally wrong, how can we trust it at all?  There are obviously morbid and perverted consciences; but if conscience itself is the ultimate authority, and is not to be justified and criticized by some deeper test, what right have we to call any of its manifestations morbid or perverted?  Is it not a species of egotism to hold one’s own moral discernment as superior to another’s; and if so, do we not need some criterion by which to judge between them?  Surely the diversity of its judgments makes conscience an impossible foundation for morality; we should have as many codes as consciences and fall into a hopeless confusion.  If conscience everywhere agreed in its dictates, could we base morality upon it?  Even, however, if conscience led us all in the same direction, would that prove its authority?  Perhaps we should all be following a will o’ the wisp, and foolishly sacrificing our desires to an idol of the tribe, a universal superstition.  Must it not show its credentials before it can legitimately command our allegiance?  It is but one specific type of impulse among many; why should it be given the reins, the control over all?  Do we say, because conscience makes for our best welfare?  The answer would, in general, be true; but we should then be putting as our test and ultimate authority the attainment of our welfare, which would be to abandon the point of view we are discussing.  Conscience claims authority.  But that might conceivably be mere impudence and tyranny.  Moreover, there are those who feel no call to follow conscience; how could we prove to them that they ought?  Is it not the height of irrationality to bow down before an unexplained and mysterious impulse and allow it to sway our conduct without knowing why?  If the “ought” is really shot out of the blue at us, if there is no justification, no imperious demand for morality but the existence of this inner push, why might we not raise our heads, refuse to be dominated by it, and live the life of free men, following the happy breezes of our desires?  That is precisely what many have done, men who have reached maturity enough of mind to see the emptiness of following an ingrained impulse simply because it exists, but not a full enough maturity to see beyond to the real justification and significance of conscience.

A further realization of the inadequacy of the intuitive theory comes when we observe that conscience is by no means always clear in its dictates.  It often leaves us in the lurch.  Developed in us as it has been by circumstance and suggestion, it helps us usually only in certain recognized types of situation.  When new cases arise, it is hopelessly at sea.  As a practical working principle, conscientiousness is not only apt to be a perverted and provincial guide, it is insufficient for the solving of fresh and difficult