Seven answers are given to this question, of which the following by Eub. U. (Eusebio Urban, a nom de plume of W. Q. Judge) appears as the 6th and has special reference to the 5th immediately preceding Mr. Judge's answer, a statement by "B.F.D." which reads: "B.F.D. -- I sometimes think that zealous Theosophists, in a creditable anxiety to promote general charity, go a little too far in their assertion of fraternal duty. They speak as if anything is pardonable because done by another man, who, because a man, is a brother. Yet it would seem that the basis of Brotherhood is equal rights and mutual affection, and to these I have the same claim as any other man. He is no more privileged to violate my rights than I to violate his, and I am therefore entitled to the same protection as is he. Hence it cannot be the fact that I am any more bound to look leniently on unfraternal aggressions by him upon me, than I should be upon like acts by me upon him. In other words, it is as much my duty to restrain him from outrage upon myself, as myself from outrage upon him. Theosophy cannot, and does not, teach that all protective appliances are to be thrown down, and that the way is to be freed for every attack by the greedy or the selfish. We must be careful, in our zeal for charity, to remember that justice is the antithesis, not to charity, but to injustice."