This is Dr. Cabot's strongest point. He believes in the moral influence of individuals. So do all leading advocates of sex-instruction or of any other form of moral education. This is in no sense opposed to any accepted proposition of sex-education. (7) "Sanitation may increase immorality.... I do care more for morality than for sanitation. Where the two conflict I want morality to lead and to govern." [Sidenote: Morals rather than health.] Right here is the basis for Dr. Cabot's repeated attacks on the sex-education movement. He believes that morality and sanitation are decidedly conflicting. His address fails to support this idea with regard to a single point concerned with the proposed sex-education. He mentioned only two points wherein there is apparent conflict, namely, prophylaxis that allows immorality while avoiding venereal disease, and prevention of conception. Neither of these is directly involved in the sex-education movement, and their immoral bearings are highly debatable. [Sidenote: Ethics of venereal antisepsis.] Venereal prophylactics may increase promiscuity of some unmoral and immoral men, but if universally and scientifically used by such men, there would be little or no infection of innocent women and children. Therefore, I assert that the good that would come from the use of prophylactics by those who do not recognize moral control would be far more significant than the fact that venereal prophylactics might encourage immorality. Those who would use prophylactics would be no worse morally than they were before, but society would gain hygienically. [Sidenote: Ethics of contraception.]