[the club's opinion] we may or may not comply with certain requirements of a social framework when others may not
A man's fame, good or bad, and his honor or dishonor, are names for one of his social selves. [...] It is his image in the eyes of his own 'set,' which exalts or con- demns him as he conforms or not to certain requirements that may not be made of one in another walk of life.
Thus a layman may abandon a city infected with cholera; but a priest or a doctor would think such an act incompatible with his honor.
A soldier's honor requires him to fight or to die under circumstances where another man can apologize or run away with no stain upon his social self.
A judge, a statesman, are in like manner debarred by the honor of their cloth from entering into pecuniary relations perfectly honorable to persons in private life. Nothing is commoner than to hear people discriminate between their different selves of this sort: "As a man I pity you, but as an official I must show you no mercy; as a politician I regard him as an ally, but as a moralist I loathe him;" etc., etc.
What may be called 'club-opinion' is one of the very strongest forces in life.
The thief must not steal from other thieves; the gambler must pay his gambling-debts, though he pay no other debts in the world. The code of honor of fashionable society has throughout history been full of permissions as well as of vetoes, the only reason for following either of which is that so we best serve one of our social selves. You must not lie in general, but you may lie as much as you please if asked about your relations with a lady; you must accept a challenge from an equal, but if challenged by an inferior you may laugh him to scorn: these are examples of what is meant.
We do not love people so much for the good they have done us, as for the good we do them.
Love does not consist of gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction.
It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.