Following on from a previous mailing . . .

Purely and genuinely fortuitously, in the course of reading a novel, The Unburied by Charles Palliser, I came across the following quotation.

The reason I reprint it here is that it is so apposite to what I was talking about in the early mailings of this latest tranche of articles—the scientific confirmation of an inbuilt moral compass within human beings.  And specifically to the matter dealt with in the mailing of July 23rd headed, ‘Now we come to the interesting part . . .’

I won’t go into any further description because the matter is self-explanatory in terms of that earlier mailing.

                                                .  .  .

“‘I don’t know why you use that word,’ the old gentleman said.  ‘Freeth was not murdered—he was executed.  His death was necessary in order to prevent a greater loss of life.’

‘It can never be right to assess a man’s life so pragmatically,’ I protested, looking at Austin for support.  He merely shook his head as if declining to give a view.

‘That is a religious position which deals in moral absolutes,’ the old man replied with complete dispassion.  ‘I take the humanistic view that there is always a calculus of human interests in which the benefit of many may be purchased at the expense of the few.’

‘I call myself a humanist,’ I said indignantly.  ‘But I reject absolutely that point of view.  Human life is sacred.’

‘Sacred?’ the old man sneered.  ‘You can use that word and claim to be a humanist?’”