Here it is important to discriminate in regard to that natural impulse in all minds which is excited by the infliction of pain on self or on others. It is this natural impulse to inflict evil on the author of evil which is the foundation of _justice_ in the family and in the civil state. Its design is for the best good of all concerned, and it becomes evil only by excess and misuse. So long as it is controlled by reason and conscience it is good and only good. In view of the above distinctions, there can be no moral evil in _desires_ for things which it would be wrong to choose, _except as these desires are the result of previous wrong choices_.(7) It has been shown that the principle of _habit_ renders it more and more easy and agreeable to regulate our choices by the rules of rectitude. The habit of sacrificing personal gratification to the rule of duty may be so cultivated that what at first was difficult, and involved a painful struggle, becomes easy. It is possible so to cultivate such habits that our highest desires, and the dictates of reason and conscience, shall continually be more and more coincident. We can conceive of newly‐created beings as placed in such circumstances that, for a considerable period, all their strongest desires may be coincident with the best good of themselves and of others, so that there can be no opportunity to practice self‐control in regulating their desires by the rules of rectitude. In such a case, while acting simply from impulse, without reference to rule, they would always act _right_, and yet they would form no habits of self‐control, and thus would be liable to fail at the first temptation where their strongest desire conflicted with the known law of rectitude. The preceding statements are made in order to arrive at correct and discriminating definitions of certain fundamental terms on which the whole question of the “depraved nature” of the human mind will be found to turn. Right in Tendency and Right in Motive. Mankind in all ages and in all languages speak of certain acts as right or wrong in reference to their _tendency_ or their effect on human happiness, and without reference to the intention of the author. Thus they affirm that the stealing and selling of men is wrong, whatever may be the motives of the slave trader. Again, they speak of acts as right or wrong in reference to the _motive_ or _intention_ of the author. Thus they say a man who sacrificed his wealth and reputation, rather than to violate his conscience, acted right as to _motive_, although he was mistaken in his views of duty, so that his act, as it respects its tendency, may have been wrong. Right General Purpose.