M. de Flaumont.—Certainly not; but do you think it possible to do good to every one?
Gustavus.—To do that, we should have to pass our days in running about the streets, in order to assist all the poor.
Clementine.—Or even wander over the earth to discover those who might require our aid, and spend our whole fortunes in doing so.
Henry.—This, certainly, is a point which has often puzzled me.
M. de Flaumont.—It is because you have not considered that each man, forming but a very small portion of the world, can be specially trusted with only a very small portion of the good to be done in it. Were it otherwise, it would be impossible to do any good at all; for if every one wanted to do everything, there would be nothing but confusion. Each one must therefore endeavour to discover for himself what is the portion of good he is naturally expected to do. Thus, even if it were not a duty of justice to make the existence and well-being of our children our first care, still it would be a duty of reason, since it would be absurd to neglect the good we might accomplish in our own homes, for the sake of going elsewhere to do good. This duty, therefore, we must first of all fulfil, and afterwards consider what means are left for the accomplishment of any others which may present themselves; such as kindness and devotion towards those who have no other claim upon us, than that of standing in need of our aid.
Henry.—Notwithstanding all that, papa, I shall always find it difficult to understand, that because a man has children who require his protection, he must therefore give up the idea of assisting others if, by so doing, he exposes himself to danger.
M. de Flaumont.—You are right not to understand it, for it is not true. We can, and we certainly ought, even in that case, to expose ourselves to a moderate danger for the sake of a great good. Thus, for example, if the river had been tranquil, or even had there been only a considerable probability of escape, Paul would have done wrong not to throw himself into the water.
Clementine.—But, papa, since he might still have perished, he would still have exposed himself to the danger of failing in his duty towards his children.
M. de Flaumont.—Undoubtedly; but would he not also incur great risk of losing an opportunity of saving a fellow-being, when, to all appearance, he might have done so without injuring his children?
Clementine.—Yes; and now the case becomes again embarrassing.