When Morals Are Sufficient, Law Is Unnecessary;

Man Is Only A Moral Being Because He Lives In Society, Since Morality Consists In Solidarity With The Group, And Varies According To That Solidarity. Cause All Social Life To Vanish, And Moral Life Would Vanish At The Same Time, Having No Object To Cling To.

That Men Have An Interest In Knowing The World Which Surrounds Them, And Consequently That Their Reflection Should Have Been Applied To It At An Early Date, Is Something That Everyone Will Readily Admit.

At This Point, An Urgent Question Arises: [...] Is It Our Duty To Seek To Become A Thorough And Complete Human Being, One Quite Sufficient Unto Himself; Or, On The Contrary, To Be Only A Part Of A Whole, The Organ Of An Organism? Briefly, Is The Division Of Labor, At The Same Time That It Is A Law Of Nature, Also A Moral Rule Of Human Conduct; And, If It Has This Latter Character, Why And In What Degree?

What History Teaches Us Is That Man Does Not Change Arbitrarily; He Does Not Transform Himself At Will On Hearing The Voices Of Inspired Prophets. The Reason Is That All Change, In Colliding With The Inherited Institutions Of The Past, Is Inevitably Hard And Laborious; Consequently It Only Takes Place In Response To The Demands Of Necessity. For Change To Be Brought About It Is Not Enough That It Should Be Seen As Desirable; It Must Be The Product Of Changes Within The Whole Network Of Diverse Casual Relationships Which Then Determine The Situation Of Man.

Our Excessive Tolerance With Regard To Suicide Is Due To The Fact That, Since The State Of Mind From Which It Springs Is A General One, We Cannot Condemn It Without Condemning Ourselves; We Are Too Saturated With It Not Partly To Excuse It.