Do the words right and wrong convey to man any true standard of justice? Are not those words arbitrary and do they not convey to the world the idea that man is to take some person's opinions in regard to the meaning? The words were never intended to apply to the leaders of any party or sect. It must be admitted that they are right and what they say of right and wrong does not apply to them but to the masses.
Now let us see if it is not so. Take the Bible as a test. We are told that this book defines the words right and wrong. Now the Bible does not define anything, but certain men set themselves up as the standard of right and wrong to judge others, but they do not come within that sphere. In political parties, each party leader explains what is right and what is wrong for the masses to believe. So with the medical faculty. The leaders are never reckoned into the progression, only the masses. Now the idea is so absurd, although the masses do not know why it is so, it causes controversy, and up spring parties and every party or sect has its leaders, and every leader has his right and wrong for his followers.
This false way of reasoning can never cure the evil. Enlighten the masses and let them see, that the answers right and wrong are not to apply to the leaders but to themselves. Then they will see that one man has no more right to set up a standard of right and compel others to bow down to it than another man has to set up a standard for him. Now I set up no standard, neither will I bow to any person's standard of right, for the man that made the word made it to judge others and not to be applied to himself.
Here is where I stand. All men will admit that animals protect themselves by their strength or with some weapons that are given them and they use it and are all selfish. Now man at first came very near the character of the animal, and he has got a great deal of the animal about him at this day. Ask a man if he believes slavery is right and he will say, Yes, and another will say, No. Now I will suppose that both are honest and both appeal to the Bible. Now I say one is just as right as the other according to the definition of the words right and wrong. Now is there some way to get rid of the evil that separates them, for if you can make them both agree as touching one point the thing is settled. So let the word right go, and ask them if they would be willing to submit to the slaves to rule them if they should get the power; let them put it to their own selves and if they say they would, then they are honest but not intelligent. For every person knows that whoever is not willing to do by another as he would be done by, is not honest.
Now if to be honest is right and dishonest is wrong, then reason out what is honest, and what is right. Now every man has his own identity which God gave him and to enslave him because you have the power is doing what you would find fault with if applied to you.
But if man is enslaved for the good of the community to protect the masses, as you would chain a wild beast, that would be honest and good. But to admit that you are not afraid of them and then enslave them for your own good, is not honest, and is bad. So to enslave man's opinion in regard to creeds or diseases is as bad as approving slavery.